To answer these in one go (without a list, since other people are doing that), the problems with people are the same as the problems with religion. They’re not always completely negative characteristics, just traits that can cause problems when amplified- religions can make their followers worse, and people can make their shared faith worse.
For those who say it’s just a tool, I have to say “of course it is.” But does that mean religion itself is neutral? I’m not sure. When you look at the Muhammad cartoon insanity, for example - it was stirred up by clerics and based on a purely religious rule. (Yes, there is a lot of background.) You can say that the people who rioted would have been just as hateful without religion being involved, and there’s a solid case that that’s true, but would that event have happened without religion? Maybe it’s a tool, but I’m all in favor of giving people like that as few tools as possible.
I wouldn’t. Personally, I don’t have much interest in the community that religion provides, and I don’t want to create explanations for things that aren’t explicable. I don’t think there’s a need for a new religion for ‘today’s world,’ either. Religions change with the times, but in a lot of ways, the human needs fulfilled by religion stay the same. While I often wish more religions would stress tolerance, non-judgment and respect for other people’s beliefs, that’s already stated pretty clearly and prominently in (for example) Christianity, and we can see how much difference that makes. Belief-wise, people take what they want to take.
Books would be a far better example than either of yours. Nonetheless, there is a real difference with religion. While it is true that religon without people can do nothing, not all believers are motivators. The preacher, king or president using religion for evil purposes may or may not truly believe. But they have an argument that no author of a book or comic has - that the action desired of the believer comes directly for the Almighty. While there will be people who blindly follow books or comics, in the end they are written by people and can be disagreed with. You’ve heard the explanation for natural evil, right - who are we to question God? Especially in societies where such questioning leads to exile or worse, a relgious argument is much stronger than any secular one. This is not to say that all bad things come from religion. We can laught at Pat Robertson now, but imagine what life would be like if he were head of the established church of the United States.
Comics are written by people, and are not commonly taken to be divinely inspired. If everyone thought of the Bible as just a book, there would be no problem, but all Christians have to take at least some of it as inspired - how much depends on the belief. The problem is the absolutism.
Let’s use evidence based, since “rationality” is likely to stir up claims that I’m calling believers crazy. If all religionists believed in god provisionally, we’d be in fine shape. But then faith would not be needed, all would be open to changing their beliefs based on evidence, and no one would burn down KFCs because of cartoons.
I’m not saying that all religion is eeeeevil - but by a claim to special knowledge of the desires and commands of a God or gods, religion inherently has an absolutism problem, which can be used to justify evil and inspire people to do evil in certain cases.
I never said it did. “Filling in the gaps” doesn’t necessarily mean knowledge. In fact, since I said I was talking about the portions that were unobservable, it can’t mean knowledge in this case.
Difference between believing it as literal, straightforward lectures, or hints and suggestions.
The idea that others must believe as you do is not fundamental to all religions. Thus, I fail to see what you seem to see that makes them all inherently corrupt. Of course, if one were to accept your statement that religion is evil, athiesm would be evil by the same coin. It’s a system of beliefs, as sure as any religion.
Ideas aren’t evil. Ideas don’t have purpose. Ideas simply exist.
Faith isn’t inherently irrational. You can have faith for a reason. You disbelieve in god for a reason, don’t you? You have faith in the notion that there isn’t one.
A much more cogent position than Der Trihs’s, and more supportable.
Religion is a more exploitable idea than most, this is true. And it’s not just a matter of absolutism - there’s a problem in human nature. When someone believes something, and you know they believe that thing, you can take advantage of them. It doesn’t matter if it’s a belief in God, or a belief that they’re gonna win the lottery, just you wait and see.
Trouble is, people believe things so deeply sometimes they won’t take a step back and look at situations with a clear eye. Doesn’t just happen with religion, but religion’s been around a long time, so it’s got a big foothold.
Heck, I’ve heard stories locally of people turning into rampaging animals because of a stupid basketball game. A friend of mine nearly got his butt kicked for not displaying appropriate enthusiasm after WVU got into the Elite Eight last year. Is it because sports are evil? Is it wrong to have a favorite team? Is humanity such a pack of children that it can’t be allowed to believe in anything at all?
Nah. Some… many … folks just have far too much enthusiasm. They internalize beliefs too deeply. Thinking WVU is the greatest basketball team ever isn’t inherently evil, but some folks react badly when that belief is challenged.
No it’s not. Atheism consists of disbelief in god (s), and nothing else. That’s hardly a “system of belief”.
That’s highly debatable. Does a virus have a purpose ?
No, the evidence is against one, and there is no evidence for one, and it’s the logical obligation of those who claim something exists to disprove it. Faith has nothing to do with it.
Sure it is. Depends on your flavor, of course. Do you believe in a soul? An afterlife? Any sort of metaphysics at all? Do you think killing is wrong? It’s not just big ‘G’.
Are you saying viruses are evil?
Actually there’s no evidence for, or against, other than the extremely circumstantial, on both sides. Believers are only obligated to prove their beliefs if they want to convince someone who demands proof. If you want me to believe God doesn’t exist, provide your proof.
And none of that has anything to do with atheism. It has nothing to say on that subject, or any other subject besides the nonexistence of gods.
Predatory or destructive then, if you want to nitpick.
First, I don’t need to provide any, as I said; that’s the believer’s obligation. That being said, the best evidence against gods is the universes natural appearance and structure. It doesn’t look artificial. Another bit of evidence is historical; religion has a history of being almost obsessively wrong, both factually and morally. If religion claims there is a God, given the record that’s evidence there is no God, and that if there is one you should oppose him.
Not quite. The pope is elected by a college of Cardinals. It is not a popular election. There are no whistle stops or campaigning or baby kissing. The Cardinals get together and hold a vote. They do not send out feelers to the masses, hold conventions, take polls, or hold primaries.
Your talking people - I’m talking organizations and societies. Absolute dictatorships have the same characteristics as absolute religion. People have momentary lapses, people even kill in the heat of passion, but none save sociopaths kill and torture for a goal. The Red Sox fan, no matter how fanatical, is unlikely to think it is okay to coerce a Yankee fan to convert. They don’t send young Bostonians off to convert the New York heathen. I’ve rooted for the Yankees in Fenway with only minor concern for my life.
You’ve got to distinguish provisional belief from absolute belief. Only religion - and fundamentalist Communism - has concepts like believe in Jesus or fry, or that God’s genocide was moral. The secularization of Western society has certainly assisted many religious people in rejecting this absolutism, but would it be true without our pluralism? The faction responsible for our religious freedom were the deists, coming from the Enlightenment, and the minority religions fearful of being outlawed. The Inquisition was not the act of a hot head, but a theologically supported and institutional program.
Tribal religions were not abolutist. That’s a more modern concept.
Censure, or excommunicate the trouble makers. They really ARE in the minority, for all the noise they make. If that doesn’t work, every time another one sticks their noses in politics to influence policy and or votes, remove their tax exemptions - permanently. If they are inciting or causing violence, jail them. The laws are already on the books. Enforce them.
Not going to work when the trouble makers are quoting directly from the Holy Book.
My best solution - have all religious leaders say that, though they believe in their doctrine, they could be wrong, and all believers should respect the beliefs of non-beliefs of others.
Some religious leaders say this already. Some never will.
I think of religion as a medication,the religion each person has is the right religion for them. If a person has high blood pressure and takes the proper medicine it will help the person .Another person can take the same medicine and it could cause them harm. I do not think trying to push one’s beliefs on another is a healthy thing. I am not a Christian but I do not remember the Bible saying Jesus was going door to door to convert any one, he left it up to the people to follow him or not.
Even people in the same religion do not agree on a lot of things.
That, or brainwash everybody. I think the problem with religions – and humans in general – is simply free will and the related self-awareness. Take both away and make everybody the same and religion would become moot since there wouldn’t be any differing viewpoints.
Religion is merely a symptom of a larger problem: being human. You can’t fix religion without fixing the humans.
It most certainly does. Depending on the flavor of athiesm, as stated. If you don’t believe in god because you don’t believe in anything metaphysical, then you’re not going to believe in a soul, either. It’s all connected.
Viruses can be predatory or destructive. Religions can be predatory or destructive. I think the line between the physical reproduction of a virus and the intangible reproduction of a religion is a big, bold one, though. A virus acts. A religion doesn’t.
You’re a believer as sure as I am. You believe there is no God. You don’t know this. You can’t, with certainty. Evidence on the appearance of the universe : circumstantial, and subjective. Evidence based on “historical wrongness” of religion? Pre-supposes the conclusion.
All athiests are believers. Some athiests are smug schmucks with feelings of superiority. Did athiesm make them that way? Nah. They’d be smug schmucks with feelings of superiority if they were Christian, too.
So you claim religion, as an idea, is evil. That’s an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence. Are there any other abstract nouns you’d like to warn us about? Thought, perhaps? Libertarianism?
Going back to the OP - I tihnk a modern religion would be best served by simplicity and clarity - mark the boundaries where it’s supposed to stop and don’t let it interfere with science. Then again, as Reply replied, the fault lies in human nature.
A couple of comments from things mentioned in the other posts. Der Trihs If faith is irrational by definition then we must all be irrational. We all operate on faith of some kind when it comes to our day to day moment choices.
I think what you’re talking about is believing in a physical reality we have no evidence of, or what Voyager refers to as absolutism. If someone has certain ideas about the areas in which we don’t know all the particulars thats not irrational as long as they recognize that they don’t “know” with a certainty. When people close their minds and leave no room for their beliefs to change and evolve, especially when evidence is presented, that’s irrational.
IMHO I think the same part of the brain that creates all the problems with religion would still exist and create the same problems without religion. Why do certain people want to be told what to believe and think by someone else? Why do feel the need to belong to some group with certain rules and guidelines that separate that group from others. Us vs. them. It seems to be a part of the human condition that we have to work through.
I agree with Voyager that a big part of the problem is absolutism. We’re right and that means anyone who thinks differently must be wrong. {That only occurs in religion right?} That in itself would be tolerable until those folks feel the need to “save” everybody but making them see what’s right. When defending the faith becomes a real world battle instead of an internal one problems arise.
Solutions? For myself it’s respecting people’s right to believe what they will but challenging those beliefs when they spill over into my life. Encouraging others to examine their beliefs and decide for themselves. A respectful exchange of ideas and beliefs whenever possible. In general promoting the need for tolerance while not promoting religion as having some special status when it comes to it’s effect on society. Promoting the concept that all people have a right to choose their own path and worship {or not} as they will, even the ones we disagree with.
Inevitably religious beliefs do spill over into our lives and we have to take some kind of stand. I think it’s important to remind people that they have an opinion about what God wants or God’s will but they don’t know. They can vote their conscience on gay marriage and abortion but expect to be challenged.
Atheism isn’t; it’s nothing but the simple belief that there are no gods, and may or may not be due to disbelief in “metaphysics”. You can believe in spirits, magic, psychic powers and goblins; as long as you don’t believe in a god, you’re an atheist.
A virus subverts cells, and acts through it. A religion hijacks minds, and act through them. Religion does have physical substance; like all information, it is imprinted upon some sort of medium, just like a virus.
And as an off topic aside, I understand that all viruses are destructive ( save for a few genetically engineered ones ), unlike bacteria. Last I heard, there were no known viral symbionts, and they cannot live independently; that leaves predation/parasitism.
Except that the absence of something is the logical default. I don’t believe in a god for the same reasons I don’t believe in fairies; there’s no reason to.
I find your attitude typical of believers; you feel the need to declare faith neccessary, to the extent you deny that other people can even disagree with you. You think that everyone is like you, and can’t seem to admit that anyone can be truly different from you. You can call me smug, but declaring that I really agree with you but won’t admit it; that’s smug, and typical of the religious.
Evil, duh. Evil is an abstract noun, and by definition evil is evil.
Religion has no bounderies; it is all-consuming. As I see it, human nature isn’t the problem, given religion’s viral nature; to the extent someone is religious, they are simply a puppet of that religion.
As long as it matters to the American (world) public what religion their leader is and if he talks to his Creator, as long as s/he plays the God Card to drum up the vote, things won’t get better.
Better education.
It seems to me that radical/extremist religion seems to perpetuate from the uneducated. If people were more educated, they could make better decisions without having to rely on their religious convictions and clergymen as a sole source of information. I believe that the organized religion tends to discourage critical thinking.
Personally, I think we would all be better off if we as a people were more spiritual, and a hell of a lot less religious.
I really just posted in this thread to be the first one to whoop out the little yamicka man… ;j
I guess I should jump in here. I agree with most people so far that religion is generally a bad concept. I think spiritual beliefs should be personal, not group think.
CandidGamera - your argument reminds me of the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” thing that the NRA seems to love. Do you believe that moto?
