Some people, when they want to explain why religion is really bad, cite their personal experience (or the experience of people they know, or have heard of) to make a point. They keep telling the world, whether we are interested or not, how bad religion is because how much it has hurt them.
Now imagine someone who has a terrible past because he or she once was addicted to the internet, how this f_cking internet nearly destroyed their life, how they had to struggle for many years to escape from this addiction. And that we all should keep away from the internet because it is so dangerous. Would you stop using the internet because this person has had so bad experiences with it? Have you stopped drinking beer because there are alcoholics? Should we all abandon alcohol because some people can't handle it?
Personal experiences like this do not prove anything, they do not even show anything meaningful apart from the trivial fact that some things can be - and become - dangerous in some respects, in some circumstances. There are very few things that cannot "break bad" and become toxic: you can eat too much, become obsessed with sex, music, sports, Facebook.
Nobody in his or her right mind would deny that religion too is one those things that can turn toxic, that it hurts people and causes a lot of suffering. It is obvious. But it is a logical non-sequitur to conclude that religion as such is dangerous and pernicious and should be avoided.
We should fight toxic varieties of religion just as we fight alcoholism or internet addiction, but it is not a rational option to abandon religion as such just because there are extremists and fundamentalists
Personally, I DO think alcohol should be banned permanently. Also cigarettes. Both are EXTREMELY bad for you.
Today, we have the potential to design drugs which perfectly mimic the alcoholic "buzz" without the disadvantages of hangovers, drunk driving, the violence, horrible health consequences, etc.
AND, like other designer drugs, the "buzz" could be devised to last a certain period of time like, say, the length of the party attended, or up until bedtime.
If we put all the money spent on cleaning up the mess alcohol causes, and put it into creating such a wonderful substance, we would save in the long run countless billions, even trillions, of dollars.
Similarly, we could invent a "religion pill" to emulate all the "warm fuzzies" religion provides the religion addict. For those of us NOT so addicted. I suggest a Manhattan Project to devise a religion without the toxic side effects:
Boo
@indirect76 Boo?
I think that imminently reasonable. People subscribe to religions for basic animalistic reason--let's be open-minded for a second--like the "warm fuzzies" engendered when they feel loved, supported, doing what they think is the "right thing," goin' to heaven, etc--and my Golden Rule pill will do that for them.
Religion is a drug. How many times have you heard that? I'm just proposing a better drug.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
@Matias It's not nonsense in that to imagine someone who is basically a good person doing something that in any other context would be shockingly evil to do for a morally normal person...really takes something exactly like religion, or like religion in all the ways that make religion religious.
And with regard to Pascal, it is certainly possible to be very religious in your religion and still see the problem with religious belief in all other religions. In fact, pointing out how everyone else's religion is evil and will send them all to hell is often a central pastime of holding a religious belief.
@Matias Why is the first quote 'nonsense'? Pascal does not say religion is evil, nor do I believe that is the point he was making, only that it's a very, very effective tool for convincing people to gleefully commit evil, when they otherwise might not.
"I'm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I have seen what it can do to skyscrapers." - Bill Maher (I believe)
@DesertInfidel , funny how he does not answer when you are correct
Having beliefs that are false always has the potential to cause harm. I'm not fighting anything. I am promoting critical thinking.
Weren't most Native Americans almost erradicated by White People who brought religion and alcohol with them?
Apparently not having natural defenses against the tyranny of the religious conquerers and no tolerance at all to alcohol were big problems!
Maybe getting rid of both those things would be an improvement. I know I can live without both.
Things that religion has a negative impact on:
The general public
Schools
Local politics
National politics
Health care
Minorities
The LGBTQ+ community
Children
Abortion clinics
Planned Parenthood
Hospitals
Insurance companies
The local economy
The national economy
The global economy
Taxes
History
The local community
Local businesses
Nationwide business chains
Food (Kosher/Halal/Haram)
Women
African Americans
The police
Money
Your friends
Your neighbors
Prisons
Public property
Private property
Housing
Charity
Education
Higher education
The law
Judges
Lawyers
Criminals
Parents
Teachers
Wow, that's a pretty long list, isn't it? And it's not even comprehensive or complete... Based on this list alone, I would have to conclude that religion should be eliminated from society, as it holds too much influence over too many aspects of my daily life. Even if the effects weren't negative, and instead were positive that is still far too much influence to weild responsibly without at least internal corruption occurring.
@Matias I found this jumbled list in my head in a file labeled "Observations on Religion" It's a very comprehensive folder, as those are just the headers on the sub folders,. And I am now filing your comment under several cross-referenced folders, such as "Delusional", "Charlatan", "Intellectually Dishonest", "Denial", "Snark", "Bullshit", "Ad Hominem", and "Blind" among others. I don't need to know your friends and neighbors to know that they have been negatively effected by religion, as every person on Earth has been negatively effected by religion, so that includes your friends and neighbors. I'm sure they, if they are predisposed to Faith like yourself, will either deny that they have been, like yourself, or won't even realize it unless it's directly pointed out to them or demonstrated directly, and even then, they will probably deny it to the presenter and themselves, like you did here. Also, you don't need to be clairvoyant to say that something as pervasive and toxic as religion has had a negative effect on everyone who comes into contact with it. Much in the same way that I can boldly claim that everyone who has ever breathed oxygen has benefited from it, or that anyone who has come into unprotected contact with high levels of radiation has been negatively effected by it to at least some degree. I find your comments and posts to be completely useless, and just nonsense, as you are preaching (and yes, that's exactly what you're doing here, proselytizing) that we non-believers should keep an open mind about religion, which is insulting as fuck, because it pushes the assumption that we are all mistaken in our reasoning and fall somewhere on the stupid side of the critical thinking spectrum. Especially ironic since you claim to be an atheist.
@Kafirah That response was fire.
@Kafirah What religions are you referring to here? Certainly not indigenous systems or Buddhist or Jain or Sikh or Quaker or Rastafarian, or Raelian or Satanist...
Perhaps you just mean the Abrahamic.
@Geoffrey51 I believe that all religions are bad. All of them. For each and every one of them encourages one to believe in some form of supernatural bullshit. However, that being said, I do not believe all religions are EQUALLY bad. That is to say that some are far worse than others, such as the Big Three Abrahamic ones, and they certainly are at the top of the list of evil insane megalomaniacal ones. The rest are rather benign by comparison. However, they preach the existence of the supernatural, and therefore are not without blame. Let's look at your examples...
Buddhism teaches Karma as a supernatural force that balances the scales through reincarnation. This allows for the faults and character flaws of any given individual to be overlooked and blamed on the actions of one's past lives. And it discourages individuals from taking personal responsibility for their own actions. And simultaneously it implies that an individual's soul is irrevocably and nigh-inescapably tainted. This is just more original sin in a pretty cosmic wrapper.
Jainism teaches a similar form of supernatural nonsense as karma and reincarnation, but allows for an individual to break free of the karmic cycle, which is an improvement. However, they also teach unhealthy week (8 days actually) fasts and a vegan diet that is inconsistent and not really vegan (for example: no eggs, but milk is fine. And no eating root vegetable or tubers because they grow in the ground... but hypocritically, they are fine on certain days because reasons). But frankly, teaching there is an afterlife is simply enough to be considered bullshit.
Sikhism again teaches karma and reincarnation.and that there is a god that judges you by your sins after you die. Complete nonsense. It is also the lovechild of Hinduism and Islam and was raised by what I consider bad parents.As a result, most Sikh live as though it is 1950 and women should be in the kitchen or ironing clothes at home, rather than combining oligonucleotides or running multinational conglomerates. Misogyny is to be looked down upon, no mater what gender you are.
I am actually unfamiliar with the Quakers for the most part. But if they teach that there is a god and an afterlife, which I consider inherently dishonest, if only intellectually, they aren't for me.
Rastafarians teach that Emperor Haile Selassie.was a living god. and that when a Rastafarian dies, they go to Heaven in Africa. Nonsense, but you'll believe anything if you're high enough. Honestly, Rastafarianism is just diet Christianity of the Protestant variety with weed with acceptable idolatry.
Raelians are fucking dumb. Each and every one of them believes that aliens are here and part of our global culture. They worship a guy who named himself Rael and he is their god and their pope. And Raelians are a cult, not a religion, and resemble Scientology in their absurdity.
Satanist for the most part don't bother me a bit, as they are not an actual religion, but a parody of religion. Most are atheists. However, I do have a problem with LaVey Satanism, as it teaches a belief in magic, and by extension magical thinking. If it teaches that the supernatural is real, it's bullshit. And it's robbing its believers of the ability to face reality through critical thinking and logic. The Church of Satan, is inferior to Geaves Satanism as practiced by The Satanic Temple.
But, as I said before, not all religions are equally bad, but they are all bad in one way or another.
@Kafirah Thank you. I am grateful that you have researched and made a deliberated and knowledgeable reply . It is a breath of fresh air compared to the many monosyllabic and unconsidered responses that area frequently in evidence.
@Geoffrey51 My pleasure. I am happy whenever I get an opportunity to both educate others and put all those wasted semesters of theology courses to good use... lol
Hmmm, I don't think I agree with what you are stating.
Your question/position of not abandoning religion because of a few bad eggs, "extremests and fundamentalists" seems to miss a larger picture.
Let's for a moment consider there are no bad eggs. The religious bad guys don't exist. Churches are tents and they use donations 100 percent for charitable endeavors.
Here is the problem. You are still being significantly harmed by them. In fact, this is the most harmful portion of religion.
Those religious leaders, the good guys, have convinced the masses they have a soul. If their good and follow made up rules, they will be reunited with their loved ones and live forever. They will not die.
Religions offer Immortality. You can live forever! Your young again in heaven!
This is the reason you are going into a body bag. This is the reason you will age.
How long do you have to live, to live forever?
20 years. 30, 40, 50, 100?
Now, How long do you have to live to reverse the age process? To reach immortallity? If the majority of the population stopped following these stupid religions and put their money and votes into medical research?
5, 10, 15, 20 possibly 30 years.
People believing in Big Foot doesn't hurt you. People believing in god kills you.
Looking at your other comments you seem to firmly side with the post.
Okay.
Why the question mark on mine? There is impirical data supporting my statement.
Are you confused? Is your tactical manneuv er to act like it doesn't make sense? Or maybe your dense.
Which is it?
@Heathenman That's exactly his tactic, judging by his ad hominem attack comment on what I wrote...
Religion teaches reliance on the make believe - faith - prayer- a non-existent sky daddy. All of that is unhealthy.
Delusions that are well fed - can become illness.
Then there's the drain on time and income. Threat of molestation. Teaching backwards self serving morals. Women and children subjugated.
I never say "I was molested in a church - don't go." . I will say "Why would you trust someone who believes in make believe to be alone with your child?" . "This isn't a person whose character you know." .
But I am an antitheist - I'll use any tools in the tool box if it might help others.
We should fight toxic varieties of religion...
Who decides where or when a religion becomes toxic?
Of all the things you list only one of them is forced down people's throats - religion.
I don`t quite agree with the post. Your argument goes roughly like this. Just because religion has the potential for great harm like alcohol or the internet doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.
The big difference is that booze or the net do not seek to impose on others. Sure drunken revelry may wake us up on the weekend but nobody would suggest that we close down TV and shops in order that people can visit bars instead. As was the law in the UK when I was young, regarding churches on Sundays. No one is saying that we should cease teaching established science and simply make children surf the net for answers because all internet is true "So sayeth Albert Einstein, inventor of the lightbulb".
What makes religion inherently bad is the notion of absolute certainty and moral superiority. You may believe that Bud light is the best drink in the world? A religious person would seek to impose that belief on all bars and the populace.
Even in its mildest form, religion seeks to control the lives not only of its members but others as well. Sometimes this can be for the good, other times not so. What makes the difference is no matter how strongly the secular person may believe in any given subject and seek to impose their will. They cannot claim a divine right.
Sorry but I think your arguments are facile. Religion has never harmed me in any way but I dislike the negative aspects of it. The damage caused by religion throughout history is enormous and is still causing damage particularly when allied to politics.
As for banning alcohol. Prohibition was a great success, wasn't it.?
I drink a few bottles of beer a week and a good meal out is not complete without a good glass of red wine. I don't drink to get drunk but because I like the taste and I have yet to taste alcohol free beer that doesn't taste like gnats piss., so I think Storm 1752's idea of a drug to copy being drunk is ridiculous
You make good points. WIth religion, the avoidance on my part is because I don't like the poor thinking methods it leads to. At some point, to embrace one of the Abrahamic faiths, you have to suspend logical and scientific thinking. So yes, religion is bad although I grant there is a spectrum of bad-ness.
I became a teetotaler because many in my family as a child were alcoholics. I suspected my life would turn out better, but I didn't realize how much better. And I didn't realize it would save a few other people by following my example also.
If we could only do the same with religion.
@Matias But people don't know if they have the vulnerability until they start drinking. Therefore, no one should put themselves at risk. (It's like taking poison that only kills some people. Arguing that everyone should take it because some people won't die is not a good argument. I'm open to others, though.)
@Matias No. Only from things like religion and alcohol that have a long track record of destroying many people's lives.
I'm certain someone, somewhere smoked meth once and never smoked it again. Should everyone smoke meth because maybe they will possibly be ok like that person? lol
It's just a bad argument. I'm sure you can make a better one?
@greyeyed123 , that is a lot of words for No He Can't
The answer to your question is no, we need not all become teetotallers. I have carefully read most of the responses to your post and cannot understand why so many of them are so hostile. This is a legitimate philosophical argument which you postulate and yet most others seem not to be able to separate you, from the premise. We must try to think in the abstract and not personalise the question because we can truly only be objective by doing so. There are many aspects to religion that I object to, not least of which is the interference of my rights when it is given special status by society, and politicians are allowed to use it to deny basic human rights to women in respect of dominion over their own reproductive health. It robs people of the ability to think for themselves and turns otherwise intelligent adults into unthinking morons, for that reason alone I wish it could be eliminated...however that is wishful thinking and never likely to happen. Religion is something that we must accept as a reality, whether we like it or not and it’s certainly not rational to think that we can get enough people to see our point of view and abandon it. I know many to whom religion brings great comfort and is not a malign influence, I know many who say that they are inspired to help the poor and needy by their religion and do good work with the best of motives, I accept that they believe this to be so, even though I think that these people are already predisposed by their humanity to reach out to help others. Let us channel our anger for the Institutions and the abuses they perpetrate and not direct our contempt at those of us who are merely asking thought provoking questions.
@Matias I only speak as I see things.
@Matias I was brought up in a family where we were encouraged to be individuals and to think for ourselves...my father was self educated, but the wisest and most knowledgeable of men. I pride myself in thinking rationally and usually against the mainstream...a badge of honour if you like! Anyway I hate bullying and some of the responses below verged on personal animosity....not the result of rational thought but a knee-jerk reaction.
Are "we" really doing anything OTHER than "fighting toxic varieties of religion"? The only area of disagreement is whether a few, some, or all are toxic.
Can we really afford to be THAT sanguine in the face of, oh, for instance:
... a Baptist minister screwing a girl starting at age 9 and belatedly getting caught? Is this really an unusual bad apple and is it really unremarkable that religion's immune system didn't prevent this from happening? Is it really that anomalous? Given that this kind of thing is standard operating procedure in the RCC, one of the very largest and most influential religious groups on the planet, I rather doubt it.
Maybe you want to think that religion is mostly salubrious for society or that somehow despite this kind of thing constantly happening in religious settings has nothing of substance to do with religion ideologically, epistemologically or systemically, but forgive me if I'm not so sure.
And even if I were as sure as you, forgive me if I don't your need to take up their cause. Let THEM defend themselves. If they can.
Extremists and terrorists agree enough reason for me to advocate against religion. If i come to weigh between the comfort it offers to some vs the lives it had caused to lose and children suffering.. sorry innocent people freedom and lives are more valuable and their side wins. End of discussion
Are you referring to religion or Abrahamic based systems?
IMO religion is the root of evil. It's all about money and power.
The extremists and fundamentalists are the ones who give religion a bad name, but those people exist in all other human endeavors, government, business, etc. Remove religion and extremism still exists. Fundamentalism is the problem, not religion.
Fundamentalism isn't the only part of religion that's harmful. Take the methodist church, it's not fundamentalist yet they don't allow gay marriage, they preach about how transgender are bad. Or take the catholic church, do I have to list all their problems? Religion is bad by it's very nature. I say this as someone who has experienced many christian sects and none of them apart from liberal Friends have anything good about them.
Interesting. I've never looked at it like this before. I do think I know families whose religion is innocuous. However, in those cases where the kids are indoctrinated into it the comparison might better be made to parents who give their little ones addictive drugs.
No one is addicted to the internet... Maybe obsessed is a better word ... As far as religion, any reason is good enough to stay away from it...
I have no problem reading the Bible or other religious books, as long as I view them as mythology rather than reality. The toxic thing about religion is when they present mythology as if it were reality, and then they build a scam on it, warning gullible people that if they don't pay tithing or other offerings, they will suffer forever in hell. They also attempt to control everything you do and say, cause you to feel guilty about everything, and use you as a salesman to bring others into the scam.
I like the UU church (Unitarian Universalist) because they offer all the good things about churches -- fellowship, group singing, opportunities to help others, etc. -- but they allow freedom of thought, not insisting that you believe anything. They do nothing to discourage agnostics or atheists. In fact, they welcome us with open arms. They do not control your life, make you feel guilty, or insist that you impoverish yourself to support the church. It's more like a club than a church, and it's a great way to transition from religious myth to reality.
Ohferpetessake....silly at best!
Replacing one addiction with another, very common & maybe necessary for some, but only a stopgap solution.
I agree.
Religion must serve some purpose to humanity or it wouldn’t exist. Religion seems to keep some people from leading trashy lifestyles, and that alone justifies its existence, even fundamentalism.
It seems more rational to me to observe the world without judgment and try to understand why things are as they are than to wage a campaign of reform. Of course those campaigns are part of the world also and have their purposes at times if conducted in an intelligent and benevolent way.
Radical cries to do away with religion or capitalism or whatever—that’s the kind of mindless mentality that scares me.
Religion helps to placate the poor.
I think that is an evil thing to keep around.
How about we help raise up the poor and get rid of religion? So much money to help social programs.
@RavenCT People will be people. Only through brutal, violent tyranny has religion been eliminated in the past, and it always comes back.
Who are the “we” that are going to enforce your edicts? Certainly not a majority.
@WilliamFleming There is no edict here.
I think the world would be better off without religions. (That is my opinion).
I don't see that happening anytime soon. However it doesn't mean I sit quietly when someone says they're going to sacrifice another child to the nonsense.
I will tell people about the risks they may be taking.
They need to know.
As for convincing the masses there is no Sky-Daddy? We'll get there - eventually. I don't see a mass-de conversion in anyone's future.
It might be another century before we see religions fail. It might take longer.
I do hope it comes.
I'd rather see people form Humanist pursuits. That wouldn't be a waste of a Sunday. Actually helping others.
@RavenCT “As for convincing the masses there is no Sky-Daddy? We'll get there - eventually. I don't see a mass-de conversion in anyone's future.”
If I thought that was all there was to religion I would probably agree. You have a skewed perception IMO.
@WilliamFleming I see religion as harmful.
It is adults believing full on in the make believe.
Do you see a way to justify that? I do not.
It's unhealthy. Mentally unhealthy.
Coping with reality is a good thing.
I'd love to see where I'm "Skewed" in that?
@RavenCT There’s more to religion sir than just adults believing in make-believe. I agree that traditional Christianity promotes belief in some things that are not believable, but there are many religions that require no belief at all. There’s the UU for example. The Friends require no belief. New Thought Churches are not about belief. Besides that there is Buddhism which has no God concept.
Most of those do speak of God—they have a sophisticated God concept that bears no relation to your “Sky-Daddy” quip. Your use of that label shows that you yourself are not dealing with reality. When it comes to talk of God, none of us know what we are talking about. The word is a symbol for a great unknown—for ultimate reality beyond the senses.
We are free to think whatever we want about ultimate reality. Why do you insist that you hold the only correct opinion?
@WilliamFleming You just misgendered me. I'm sure the cat is confusing - but my profile does state Female. Please remember in future.
I was born atheist - I was given a religion after birth - which gratefully I have lost the need for. I wish others would too.
Having worked in Mental Health I've see the harm religion does - it is a belief in the imaginary. There is zero proof. To put that much energy into something that is 100 percent unprovable. That's not healthy. Especially when it makes promises it can't fulfill for you.
As for the motives of the people who push it on the masses? That's where it gets into some evil motives.
"Here - believe in this make believe. And do what we say!". That always ends well. (No no it doesn't.).
There are good people in religions.
I do not believe there are good religions.
And I have a sister who is a Unitarian Universalist - they are far more Humanist than some - however they dabble in every religion as needed. So that's problematic.
You know people can just get together and do good without the religious aspect. I've done some of that in my lifetime.
Don't worry about losing religion so much.
People will still want to do good. I promise.
@RavenCT Sorry ma’am.
It’s in our blood to do good. That has no direct relation to the religious impulse of mankind, which is founded on deep awareness, awe and reverence for the overwhelming and profound mystery of our existence as conscious beings.
Please don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
I have been a teetotaler my entire life for that very reason. If you never take a drink, you can never become an alcoholic. Besides, to me, a glass of tea or even Kool-aid tastes so much better.
Same here.
I never learned to like the taste of alcohol either, and given that my father and two brothers were alcoholics, it was probably good that I never started down that road.