I'm talking about all religions and every religion in general. What are your reasons? 

TEN. 
Religion and religious persons impose their faith into public policy and politics. Where it clearly doesn't belong.


NINE. 
Religion is still very much mediatory in the schools of nations such as Republic of Ireland, where it has no place. Churches were built for a reason. This makes many members of other faiths and no faiths feel uncomfortable and excluded during a time when young persons find it difficult to fit in as it is. It isn't a matter of talking about religion, but actively telling young persons to practice it mandatory. 


EIGHT. 
Many nations make it difficult for the non-religous to have any sort of successful career in politics (and being honest about their lack of faith at the same time)


SEVEN. 
Many religious groups impose their views of abortion on others and seek to make abortion illegal. Because of religion in other nations it now is or has been for sometime, outlawed medial practice. Abortion is not murder, murder is the illegal killing of a human being, not a pre-human being. 


SIX. 
Religion demonises many educational fields in contrast with its doctrine, such as certain aspects of history and many accepted theories 


FIVE. 
There have been cases in the United States and some other country where person's have lost their jobs due to lack of faith or alternative faiths and sometimes on the bases of sexual orientation (which is thought to be justified because of certain beliefs)


FOUR. 
Religion tries to justify many forms of discrimination including but not limited to, homophobia, sexism, racism and class


THREE.
Certain nations such as Iran and Uganda take their discrimination justified by religious beliefs a step further by improving atheists and murdering homosexuals


TWO. 
Religion has caused many to rebel against its corruption. While this mostly occurs in changing religions or declaring oneself atheist; that is not always the next direction for some. For some they take that faith and change it for their own purposes, often resulting in more extreme and harmful faith systems mostly regarded as cults. These cults involve all sorts of dangerous acts, such as mass suicide and sometimes violent attacks of non-beleivers of their faith. 


ONE:
Religion has literally caused people to go to war due to the influence of the faith and disagreement with certain policies based on religious beliefs (especially when a doctrine influences such actions)

Views: 2300

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But what you are stating is a hypothetical.  As it is now, in our current reality, theology has a place - in terms of the science of anthropology.  Religion, despite it's obvious failures, can provide us with insight into the human condition of existence.  Those insights can most certainly be negative in the light of your (and many other people's) position, but they nonetheless have value.  Sure, I, like you, wish religion never existed - at least as it presents itself today and what we know of it from its past.  But man is still a primitive species in that it is less evolved consciously than it should be.  Is there a paradigm shift coming?  I believe most certainly so, but religion will most likely die with a whimper than a bang. 

As for having less faith in our Fellow Man?  More than likely yes - at least at this stage of the game.  I used to have a tremendous amount of faith in Humanity in its capability to reason, awareness, and consciousness - in its capacity to feel and understand the human condition.  But when reality met my ideals, the reality I thought I was a part of fell apart.  I do not hold myself blameless either, after all, I bought into it and sold the goods myself. 

RE: "But what you are stating is a hypothetical." - with all due respect, I don't see it that way. It is not hypothetical to believe that if religion never existed, we would not have occasion to be painting angels climbing ladders to heaven, and it is not hypothetical, but rather logical progression, to believe that if we weren't painting angels climbing ladders, we would be painting something else, and by extension, if we had the capability to create masterpieces involving religious material - and we have - then by extension, it is not hypothetical, but only logical to believe we would bring that same craftsmanship to any other subject we sought to paint.

RE: "But what you are stating is a hypothetical." - with all due respect, I don't see it that way. It is not hypothetical to believe that if religion never existed, we would not have occasion to be painting angels climbing ladders to heaven, and it is not hypothetical, but rather logical progression, to believe that if we weren't painting angels climbing ladders, we would be painting something else, and by extension, if we had the capability to create masterpieces involving religious material - and we have - then by extension, it is not hypothetical, but only logical to believe we would bring that same craftsmanship to any other subject we sought to paint.

And with respect to you, what you state, Arch, is speculation at best and nothing more.  Looking at things scientifically, on the evolutionary timeline, if such a thing were to occur, it would have happened.  But it didn't, and so we are only left with the reality we have as it is today.  Can you dream of such a world without religion - where human existence is completely untainted by it?  Sure, but that is fantasy - a fiction that could have happened, but didn't happen.  So what we are left with is what did happen - our reality as it is today.

Either way, you can dream that dream. There is no harm in it, and it is a pretty dream.  Don't take me as being condescending to you - the thought crossed my mind what I wrote might do so.  You make valid points, I just don't agree.

Wouldn't it be, "speculation at best and nothing more" to assume that if Mankind didn't create masterpieces of art based on religion, that it would have created nothing at all? Isn't that highly illogical?

Exactly WHAT Humanity would have created in its place, is indeed speculation, but not that it would have created something, and without religion, it is not speculation that that something would have been non-religious, and equally as anthropologically enlightening.

What I state is not illogical - it is reality as to what has happened in the historical record. 

I don't disagree with you at all on your points, but there is a difference between what is, in terms of what has actually happened, and what isn't, in terms of what you state.  Is it possible that Humanity could have created something absent of religion with regards to the arts and the other examples we mention?  Yes!  But it didn't happen that way.  We could have also remained knuckle dragging apes, but it didn't happen that way.

Not the point - your assertion was that we needed religion to understand Humankind's cultural/anthropological heritage - I maintained that had we never had religion, we still would have had a cultural/anthropological heritage, just a different one, thus religion was unnecessary, as you had originally contended.

Arch, all I can say is that we agree, but approach it from different angles of thought.  You march in a cadence starting with the right foot, I march in a cadence starting with the left foot.  It's still marching, just a different cadence and a different starting position.

Val, this Kai Jones guy gives me a headache!  I love his comparison of science to witch hunters - right there he makes his point void if you ask me.

Yes, I agree. It's sad how many people think like Kai. Who teachs them to think like that?

None other than your friendly neighborhood church.  I must say there is a great schism between seminary schools and the church.  I got to see that everyday when I would travel to seminary to church and church to seminary.  What's worse is that many pastors have to keep what they learned in seminary closeted for fear of being "crucified" by the very people who called them to serve the church - people just like the joker who wrote the garbage you quoted. 

There is no way that a seminary of any good reputation would ever support such statements.

Ba ha ha! What is this?

"It is not feasible to a person who has accepted their notion of what life is, to believe that, and neither is it feasible for a person who 'believes', that what we see, is all that there is, and their conclusions, are the only ones that make sense to them as if they are detectives of logic, yet however, are ignoring the revelation of God and creation and sadly and foolishly, believe that if anything is done, it can only come from nature, and from the mind, discovery, and hands of a man alone, without any pre and former revelations from God, or any instructions from him."

What a clusterfuck of commas! I just love that little tingling feeling you get when you're trying to follow someone's convoluted reasoning and senseless grammar and you finally just realize that they're stringing together happy-sounding nonsense they learned in church.

I'm curious.

10.  Do you really think that atheists don't try to influence public policy according to their beliefs?  In a democracy, don't we accept that each person is going to contribute to the debate from their own perspective?

9.  That's a valid point, but here's the question:  To what extent should schools reflect and propagate the local culture?  Isn't that partly the role of a school?  Should a school in a liberal democracy teach those values, even though it makes it hard for a conservative Islamic girl to fit in?

8. Also a valid point.  What system of government would you choose to impose instead of democracy?  In a democracy, people tend to elect those politicians who are aligned with their own beliefs.

7.  I'm curious, when does a human become a human?  What genetically or developmentally makes something "pre-human"?  It's important to remember that some of the worst errors of the last century's eugenics movement came from those who sought to define some humans as less worthy of protection.

6. Do you perhaps mean "some religions"?  My religion did its best to preserve history and respects science.  I think perhaps also you might distinguish "demonize" from "disagrees".

5. That's true.  I'm not sure anecdote is sufficient to make a claim.  There have been cases of mass-murdering atheists, after all.

4. Again, I think you need to ask "which religion?"  Mine teaches against all of those things.   Sometimes, too, we have to distinguish what a religion truly teaches from the behaviors of individual adherents.  For example, I wouldn't claim that atheism as a whole tries to demonize all of us religious folks, but apparently a few atheists do.

3. Certain democracies conduct drone wars frequently blowing poor 3rd world villagers, or launch wars based on trumped up evidence in order to secure oil fields.  Does that make democracy evil?

2. Some people abandon science because they never understood it, or it didn't get them what they wanted, or whatnot.  Usually they just go into law or business, but some take science and change it for their own purposes, often resulting in extreme and harmful nonsense like climate change deniers or intelligent design curriculum in schools.  Does that make real science a bad thing?  Or is the bad thing just fake science?

1. Can I ask for an example?   I think if we're honest, we'll admit that warfare has a pretty strong genetic basis.  We didn't need to grow big huge brains just to run down antelope.  Historically, warfare has generally been tribal in nature, and still is.  Yes, tribes and nations (big tribes) have cultures which include religion (or cult-like devotion to Founding Fathers or Chairman Mao or whatnot), but that's just a correlation.  I think you need to work much harder to establish the causal claim you are making.

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 15 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 2 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service