Ask Your Question today
Essentially, do you just not believe in any higher power or do you actively believe religion is harmful/holding us back as a society? And if you’re anti-religion do you believe all religions are equally as bad or are some worse than others?
Yeah, atheists are religious. They believe that their god is the correct god, just as all the other religions do. Their god is simply no god. They insist that the being that made everything is nothing, while other religions insist that the being that made everything is their something.
Just because you call it "not god" and imply lack of intention doesn't mean your beliefs are any less religious than anyone else's. Your religion does answer both the "why" and "how" of creation. Your relgion states: Why was everything created? No reason. How was everything created? Through a series of natural processes. Just as my religion states: Why was everything created? God wanted to create it. How was everything created? It was spoken into existance by God. Your religion is still a religion and it still answers why things were created.
I’m atheist and I don’t believe just because I don’t think there’s any evidence of a god. I don’t have any problem with religious people but I think Islam holds back all the countries it has a grasp over. Christianity and Judaism are better but still pretty illogical
Although I am an atheist, I hold my neutral views on religion and I very much respect those who have a religion, how I see religion is that they teach stuff really, really weirdly so therefore it confuses other ones too. I don't think religion is harming anyone but I think that religion isn't preached properly so that is the reason why loads of people hate religion. In short I don't believe that they are as equally bad as people say them as.
That's not forcing a religion down someone's throat. Forcing a religion down someone's throat would be imprisoning the gays. Where's the harm in praying for others? Whom would that even affect, if God weren't real? No one; it would do nothing. The only way it affects anyone besides the person doing the praying is if God is real, and if that's the case, then why be an atheist?
I LOVE the surety it brings to the practitioners in times of crisis and grief. I love the music, the holidays and pomp and circumstance and how it makes me feel. I love how it connects me to the past and a higher purpose. I love how those who are dying go to their ends without fear. I ENVY true believers. I'm in a religion and WANT to fully believe but am an atheist at heart. I HOPE I am wrong and after I die I'll have a very PLEASANT surprise greeting me
Yes, but you speak as if the purpose of religion is to console people, while that is not the case at all. People have religion because people believe in their religion. A lot of religion doesn't even console people. For example, one of the more ancient types of Christian that many churches have forgotten about and strayed away from is the "fire and brimstone" type teaching that states that most people will be going to Hell, including many believers, and that few people will be going to Heaven. How is the idea that most people will be going to Hell consoling? It's not. People follow it because they believe it, not because they are being consoled by it.
Yes, and society encourages whatever belief system causes positive social behavior. Even though many belief systems have positive social synergy, they only work if conflicts of belief are minimal.
Briefly, religion affects many things. Over the centuries, as you have noted, only the most palatable ideas (like resurrection) continue, provided that they do not damage the functioning of society.
You people speak as if religion is a drug. Have you ever thought that, perhaps, religion is simply a set of beliefs? There doesn't have to be a greater purpose to one's religion besides purely what one believes in. For example, I am a Catholic; a Christian. Am I a Catholic because it consoles me? No, I am a Catholic because I believe Catholicism and Christianity to be the truth.
I don't want to sound condescending or sarcastic, but I just can't see why so many people believe these old myths that were borrowed from Greeks and Egyptians and Babylonians and cobbled together in a book called the bible. Almost nothing in it is actually true. I've been reading a book by D.M. Murdock called "Did Moses Exist?" It is extremely well reseached. There are so many absurdities in the bible. How can anyone believe it?
Another good bookis "The Myth of Persecution" by Candida Moss. "Creating Christ" by James S. Valliant is another good read.
If humanity could put religion behind it and stop killing each other in endless wars, we could accomplish great things. Religion is like a big anchor lodged in the ignorance of the iron age and holding us back. I wish we could all free ourselves.
In my view, the only kind of religion that deserves any respect whatsoever is one where:
1. While they believe theirs is the correct path, they realise that they don't know everything for certain and that they're open to criticism and change
2. Everything they believe is based, if not on evidence, then at least on logic
3. Everything in their religious texts is unambiguously stated, nothing is open to interpretation, and there's no contradictions
4. Their religious texts mention no hatred towards anyone for any reason
5. They don't proselytise
6. They don't teach their religion to children (who are unable to reason things out for themselves)
If they don't check off each of these points then why should they be respected? That's not to be confused for not respecting religious people though, I do still try to respect them (unless they're intolerant or preaching to the point of harrassment).
So a worthless religion? What you have just described is a completely useless religion. If the religious texts are unambiguous, then how can they be open to criticism and change? If they know the truth, why wouldn't they want to tell others the truth, especially their own children? You say no hatred for any reason, but what about murderers; should they just be accepted as good by the religion?
I don't see how this would be a worthless religion.
Why couldn't unambiguous texts be open to criticism/change? By 'unambiguous', I just mean that they state their beliefs plainly with no metaphors and so that no two people could interprete two different meanings from it (like with books like the Bible, where people can take any meaning they want out of it). Their logic and conclusions can be open to criticism, and the religion can then change its beliefs based on this (and also based on any new scientific findings that might disprove certain beliefs it holds).
"If they know the truth". But they don't know the truth. As described in point 2, they realise that they don't know anything for certain (I forgot to add the words 'they realise' into point 2 so it might have been unclear what I meant, I've added them in now though). They also wouldn't be so arrogant as to call their beliefs 'the truth'. And they do teach people their beliefs, but only once they ask for it. But forcefully teaching anyone religious doctrines without their consent is brainwashing and psychological abuse. Children's minds aren't developed enough to consent to something like that, so it should be illegal.
You don't have to hate a murderer to be able to imprison him, you can reluctantly imprison him because it's unfortunately the only way to keep the public safe. The justice system should be based on doing what's best for society, not on what's worst for the criminals.
So the entirety of the religion's following doesn't even believe their own religion. What good does that do them? If they realize that they don't actually believe their religion to be true, then what's the point in having the religion? Why is teaching someone the truth brainwashing and psychological abuse? People should be taught the truth, especially children, who are very susceptible to having their minds corrupted with falsehood. Are there even any religions that teach actual hatred towards anyone? The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Islam.
They would believe it, they'd just realise that it might not be true. They'd also readily change their beliefs if someone gave a good enough reason as to why their beliefs might be flawed or in light of any new evidence that disproves their beliefs. They wouldn't be like some religious people nowadays, where they continue to believe their religion even though it's been largely disproven.
Teaching people the truth isn't brainwashing, but like I said these people would realise that no religion is 'the truth', it's just their personal belief. Children are susceptible to believing whatever they're told, so taking advantage of that to teach them your personal beliefs (rather than just educating them with facts) is wrong. By the time they're old enough to decide for themselves about religious matters it's too late, they've already been indoctrinated into a religion they might not necessarily have wanted, and they may need psychological help to rid themselves of these unwanted beliefs.
Well obviously Christianity and Judaism teach that people deserve to be stoned to death for committing harmless acts, so they preach hatred.
That's not belief at all. If you think that it might not be true, then you don't actually believe in it. To someone who truly believes, the thing that they believe is fact to them and should be treated as so by them. Judaism was not a religion of hatred; it was a religion of law. If you broke the law, you got punished by the judges. Think of it like a government; just because the government puts murderers to death does not mean that the government hates the murderers, nor does it mean that they want the people to hate the murderers. Are you really going to argue that Christianity teaches that people should be stoned to death? The religion that states
"[7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst."
-John 8:7-9
and
"[14] And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: [15] Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
advocates for the stoning or hatred of people? That is not the case at all.