Top 5 Misconceptions about Religion

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One misconception is when atheists make the case that "Religious people are dangerous", but then show that they're really only talking about conservative Christians.

And except when we're talking about conservative Muslims (I'm sure you noticed the fuss in Qatar during the World Cup, or that the Taliban have just ordered all females out of higher education, period). Or when we're talking about conservative Jews (Bibi Netanyahu is just about to form a coalition with a very conservative party in Israel with a strong anti-LGBTQ agenda).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And except when we're talking about conservative Muslims (I'm sure you noticed the fuss in Qatar during the World Cup, or that the Taliban have just ordered all females out of higher education, period). Or when we're talking about conservative Jews (Bibi Netanyahu is just about to form a coalition with a very conservative party in Israel with a strong anti-LGBTQ agenda).

You have a point, there.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A lot of this strikes me as a complaint about nuance. Yes, a lot of this stuff might not be precisely true for every religious person, but it's widely true for religion in general.

I mean, you mentioned Druidry, so I looked up the number of adherents: about 30,000 in the US (unfortunately, I couldn't find worldwide stats). To put this in perspective, the US territory of Guam has a population of aboyt 130,000... IOW, the US has more than 4 times as many resident Guamanians than it has Druids.

People generally don't bat an eye at making general statements about the US that might not perfectly apply to Guam, and I'm not sure why I should give more regard than this to statements about religion in general that don't perfectly apply to all fringe religions.

It's not at all hard for an irreligious atheist like me to say 'most but not all religious adherents in the US have a dogmatic religion, but most religions in the US and abroad don't have dogma.'

 

[Alien826]

That people can be religious and scientists at the same time.

Religion (almost all of them) are based upon the belief in magic. Science is based in the belief that there is no magic. People can compartmentalize - but without some doublethink, there is no way to be a religious scientist.

That's interesting. I'm not sure I would be so dogmatic about it.

I would say that's true of someone like a YEC, but it's perfectly OK to follow the scientific method as far as it goes, but to have religious views about stuff that science can't currently explain. By "OK" I mean it's not illogical. I don't think science claims that everything is naturalistic, does it? Just that non naturalistic ideas fall outside the purview of science.

Incidentally, for many years science was seen as discovering how God had designed things.

 

[Alien826]

That religion was founded to help heal reunite and brain entrain the human families mind. To not believe in the science of God.

And is a proven failure.

Example. A long ago our told science story was retold again and again about humans owning and using by human depictions the sciences of men. It involved paranormal conjured phenomena. Seen in heavens mass.

And human witnessed the sky fallout attack on life. Told verbally the reasons for a long time as humans had healed and evolved.

Re Studied.
Mathematics relearnt by evolved mind of humans who re sought humans technology advice. Rebuilt it.

Life was sacrificed attacked again.

Fact. If creation owned your health presence it owned you not being sick first.

Fact.
Above us on mountain temples the attack nearly ended all life. Men put machines above our heads themselves.

Fact.
Evolution of human men built the only religious temples on mountains. For Ceremony only.

Fact.
Science on ground resacrificed innocent men women animals on mountains in their holy temples. Above our heads on the mount ain human life was re attacked.

Buddhists left monasteries.

Humans today don't read the scientific evidence as it was told.

The men of the law breaking as a criminal act were men scientists. They stole earths body mass spirit power. They murdered it and sacrificed the human innocent life living above them.

In mountains where once old science temples had nearly destroyed all life.

Was the information.

They looked above and saw the attack.

Three types of man's lives were sacrificed.
The scientist theist. Criminal thief.
The scientist inventor. Criminal murderer.
The innocent life of everyday man.

The worse attack on life comes about when the man theist whose human mind thinks invents all causes is eradicated out of humans DNA.

As earths mass heavens was only ever a stable state. Not a nuclear event.

It hovers on the fringes of meaning, doesn't it. And no matter how many times I reread, meaning slips just outside my grasp.

Fascinating.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. That is makes sense to talk about "religion" generally without specific qualifiers.

2.That the Abrahamics are in some sense fairly typical or representative of "religion in general".

3. That belief in the literal existence of some form of deity is in some way, shape or form helpful even to strictly theistic religions.

4. That religion requires some form of concept of deity.

5. That religion must be or at least tolerate supernatural beliefs.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Yes ... and with Partners for a Progressive Israel.

Further to the link provided by Jayhawker Soule for those unfamiliar with this organization, this is a quick Wiki overview of Partners for Progressive Israel. PPI works for peace and civil rights for all. Despite some right-wing criticism to the contrary, PPI does not support BDS in any form.

 

[wandering peacefully]

To the point here, there is no way to be a
creationist / scientist and maintain intellectual
integrity.

My bro in law believes God created the universe and evolution then took a completely natural course. He is a long tenured, evolutionary biologist, professor at Queens College,NY. I have had several discussions with him over the years of how he can explain the origins being from a god but still haven't quite gotten to the bottom of his thinking. Maybe I'll try again over Christmas. It is very fascinating. And all my family, other than my offspring, are of that same general belief. But he is a genius, if anyone can explain the concurrency of belief in the God of creation and the belief in natural evolutionary biology, it would be him. I'll try this weekend.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Really. You sure about that?

Well, I was going to use the word "dangerous," but I didn't want to sound like I thought all fundamentalists are dangerous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Further to the link provided by Jayhawker Soule for those unfamiliar with this organization, this is a quick Wiki overview of Partners for Progressive Israel. PPI works for peace and civil rights for all. Despite some right-wing criticism to the contrary, PPI does not support BDS in any form.

... I fear that we are inching far afield.

 

[Quintessence]

It's not at all hard for an irreligious atheist like me to say 'most but not all religious adherents in the US have a dogmatic religion, but most religions in the US and abroad don't have dogma.'

Thank you.

Minority groups get pretty tired of being being told "Oh, you're a minority group? Sorry, but you are irrelevant. Kindly shut up so we can pretend you don't exist and ignore everything you say (because listening to you inconveniences us and our preconceived notions about everything)." Such a disrespectful attitude that impedes learning and cultural exchange... ugh.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not at all hard for an irreligious atheist like me to say 'most but not all religious adherents in the US have a dogmatic religion, but most religions in the US and abroad don't have dogma.'

I'm not even sure what a religion, in the strict definition of that word, might actually be without some sort of dogma -- something that is to be believed as part of binding yourself to that religion.

What, after all, could be said to be good or meaningful about a religion in which the only criterion for membership is saying you belong to it -- but can believe anything you want notwithstanding?

 

[Audie]

My bro in law believes God created the universe and evolution then took a completely natural

My bro in law believes God created the universe and evolution then took a completely natural course. He is a long tenured, evolutionary biologist, professor at Queens College,NY. I have had several discussions with him over the years of how he can explain the origins being from a god but still haven't quite gotten to the bottom of his thinking. Maybe I'll try again over Christmas. It is very fascinating. And all my family, other than my offspring, are of that same general belief. But he is a genius, if anyone can explain the concurrency of belief in the God of creation and the belief in natural evolutionary biology, it would be him. I'll try this weekend.

That's not what the word" creationist" means.

 

[osgart]

How do you know that?

You are offering to take the last straw that
poor Pascal clung to.

I've been around a lot of religious people, and they sincerely have their religious convictions.

I don't believe in God, no.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not even sure what a religion, in the strict definition of that word, might actually be without some sort of dogma -- something that is to be believed as part of binding yourself to that religion.

What, after all, could be said to be good or meaningful about a religion in which the only criterion for membership is saying you belong to it -- but can believe anything you want notwithstanding?

An ethical and supportive community inspired by the tenets of religious naturalism?

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

... I fear that we are inching far afield.

You're right, and apologies to all for the thread drift.

Back on topic regarding misconceptions... I don't know if this has already been said, but not all theists (of which I am one) are necessarily hostile to atheists. It's also been my experience that not all atheists are necessarily hostile to theists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

An ethical and supportive community inspired by the tenets of religious naturalism?

Yes, I've read something of "religious naturalism," but I confess I have a very hard time really seeing a meaningful distinction from "naturalism" (without the "religious"). It sounds a little like a solution in search of a problem. Perhaps it's something embraced who are basically atheists, but don't like to admit they lack religion.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not even sure what a religion, in the strict definition of that word, might actually be without some sort of dogma -- something that is to be believed as part of binding yourself to that religion.

What, after all, could be said to be good or meaningful about a religion in which the only criterion for membership is saying you belong to it -- but can believe anything you want notwithstanding?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "religion, in the strict definition of that word," but I hope that won't be relevant for the rest of this. For most of human history, religion was not about what you believed. It was basically indistinguishable from cultural identity - who you were, who your tribe was, what your cultural traditions and practices were, that sort of thing. This isn't to say beliefs, dogmatic or otherwise, weren't involved but cultural/religious identity doesn't reduce down to "I believe such and such." This should also make it apparent that non-dogmatic religions also don't reduce down to "the only criteria for membership is saying you belong to it." It's more complicated than that. As an American, I can't just proclaim myself Canadian. Religion works similarly, outside of the more familiar models of Christianity.

 

[Heyo]

They tend to dismiss the very idea of scholarship, evidence and expertise when it contradicts their prejudices.

As bad as any creationist fundy.

I don't know any but I guess there could be some. And if they exists, yes, they are as bad as creationists or worse.

 

[Heyo]

Whelp, guess I don't exist then, nor do a lot of my colleagues and co-workers at the university. Wouldn't be the first time we've been told that.

Do you believe, at the same time, that magic exist and doesn't exist?