What is wrong with religion?

[DeepShadow]

10. A lack of falsifiability for religion - there is no way to disprove God, his religious works, or ideas inspired by these religious works

As I've stated in other threads, this poses a burden of proof problem. I've proved it to myself, why should I prove it to you? The proof I speak of is subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not sufficient. When you prove to me that you love your wife, (or anyone else) I'll prove to you that I've had revelation from God.

11. A lack of logic for religion

That's a tall order. All religions? How many have you examined that closely?

12. A lack of tolerance in religions towards other religious beliefs

In the religions, or in the adherents? Not the same thing you know. How many religions that you know of preach intolerance as part of the doctrine?

13. A lack of accountability in religions - no religion that I am aware of has accepted the consequence of it's past actions or teachings.

No offense, but I think that says more about what you are aware of than it does about the religions. I've read statements from the Catholic Church expressing deep regret for the past actions of the church. My own church was involved in events that they have expressed regrets for as well. What kind of acceptance are you looking for?

 

[Booko]

In no particular order:
10. A lack of falsifiability for religion - there is no way to disprove God, his religious works, or ideas inspired by these religious works

Not everything important in life is falsifiable. Well, someone else already addressed this.

11. A lack of logic for religion

Do you mean religion is devoid of logic, or that is based on something that is not logical, or what exactly? I'm unsure how to address this.

12. A lack of tolerance in religions towards other religious beliefs

You base this statement on...what?

Oh, it certainly happens, but is it universal? Is it in tune with the original teachings of said religions? There are any number of open questions here.

As to a specific case, my religion (Baha'i) is based not merely on tolerance of other religions, but an insistence that their basis is just as legitimate as ours.

13. A lack of accountability in religions - no religion that I am aware of has accepted the consequence of it's past actions or teachings.

DeepShadow mentioned a couple of examples. I'm not sure that all religions have something they need to apologize for, though. Some of us newbies haven't been around long enough to commit any atrocities, perhaps.

Obviously, I would like for anyone who feels that my statements are wrong to say why this is so.

I lost track of this thread a while ago, but am glad I poked my beak back in. I'll be interested in seeing what other responses there are also.

 

[rojse]

As I have said previously, I do not charge all religions with those claims. These are merely things that I dislike about religion in the general sense of the word. I am not naming one religion, or one group of religions.

As I've stated in other threads, this poses a burden of proof problem. I've proved it to myself, why should I prove it to you? The proof I speak of is subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not sufficient. When you prove to me that you love your wife, (or anyone else) I'll prove to you that I've had revelation from God.

If anyone wants me to believe in something, don't I deserve to have my questions answered to a reasonable degree? What I consider receiving reasonable is proof of an existence of a higher being before I change from atheism, and surely that is not unreasonable. Many biblical figures got their confirmation of God in the Bible.

As for an emotion called love, I say that love is merely a combination of chemicals in the brain that gives you a natural high, and you wish to be with that person because you receive the natural hit each time you are.

That's a tall order. All religions? How many have you examined that closely?

As I have stated before, it is not all religions that have done this, but some. I will not post some of the things I have found illogical, because this is a generalised thread, and I do not want to generate a mud-slinging match, but there are tenets of some beliefs that I have examined that I cannot comprehend in a merely logical sense. I have asked for answers in these forums but the answers do no service to my intelligence or wish to learn whatsoever. To dismiss these paradoxes under the "God did it, so it's all explained" category is a complete disservice to my questions, and that is an answer I do get often.

In the religions, or in the adherents? Not the same thing you know. How many religions that you know of preach intolerance as part of the doctrine?

How about religions that organise protests? Surely that is intolerance in the highest regard.

No offense, but I think that says more about what you are aware of than it does about the religions. I've read statements from the Catholic Church expressing deep regret for the past actions of the church. My own church was involved in events that they have expressed regrets for as well. What kind of acceptance are you looking for?

Thanks for that - I was not aware of this. If it is not too much trouble, can you please post links? Thank you.

 

[rojse]

Thanks for replying to my post. I will try to answer your points.

11. Answered in previous post.

12. As I have said previously, it is not universal, and I do not claim that it is so. This is merely one thing that I do not like about some religions

13. I would say yes, that intolerance is in line with the old religions. Although I do try and not use one religion as an example, I will make an exception. In the Bible, God ordered the slaughter of a city because they did not worship him. That's pretty intolerant to me.

As for newer people not having been around to have committed atrocities, the Church is an entity, that has an existence outside of it's members. Governments give apologies, although the present people in power may not have done whatever it is that they are apologising for. Businesses may apologise, although those apologising may not have been involved in the action that occurred years ago, under different leadership.

Again, thanks to DeepShadow and Booko for their points.

 

[DeepShadow]

As I have said previously, I do not charge all religions with those claims. These are merely things that I dislike about religion in the general sense of the word. I am not naming one religion, or one group of religions.

If you don't charge all religions with these things, then why do you lump them all together so much?!

If anyone wants me to believe in something, don't I deserve to have my questions answered to a reasonable degree?

Absolutely.

What I consider receiving reasonable is proof of an existence of a higher being before I change from atheism, and surely that is not unreasonable. Many biblical figures got their confirmation of God in the Bible.

Of course. The crucual question is, did they get said confirmation from another person, or from God? You seem to be asking us for evidence of God. You might as well ask me for evidence of Cleveland.

As for an emotion called love, I say that love is merely a combination of chemicals in the brain that gives you a natural high, and you wish to be with that person because you receive the natural hit each time you are.

Please, don't get me started on neuroscience. :no:

As I have stated before, it is not all religions that have done this, but some. I will not post some of the things I have found illogical, because this is a generalised thread, and I do not want to generate a mud-slinging match, but there are tenets of some beliefs that I have examined that I cannot comprehend in a merely logical sense. I have asked for answers in these forums but the answers do no service to my intelligence or wish to learn whatsoever. To dismiss these paradoxes under the "God did it, so it's all explained" category is a complete disservice to my questions, and that is an answer I do get often.

That's unfortunate that you get those kinds of answers, but that's not the fault of religion. I got cop-out answers from my science teachers all through school, that didn't stop me from becoming one.

How about religions that organise protests? Surely that is intolerance in the highest regard.

Cherry-picking fallacy. How about all the ones that don't organize protests? On what grounds do you take such a stereotyping and unscientific sample of heterogenous theists?

For that matter, doesn't it matter what they are protesting? If they are protesting in favor of gay rights, how does that make them intolerant?!

Thanks for that - I was not aware of this. If it is not too much trouble, can you please post links? Thank you.

Sure, let me look around. Wiki's being tempermental, so this might take a while.

 

[MBones]

Well, from what I read in the posts from rojse, that person is on topic and expending some thoughtful conversations to this chat. I for one have been banned from giving my input at the response level for something that I have not been made aware yet.

 

[rojse]

Replying to DeepShadow:

Of course. The crucual question is, did they get said confirmation from another person, or from God? You seem to be asking us for evidence of God. You might as well ask me for evidence of Cleveland.

I have evidence of Cleveland, though. It's in maps, it's on the internet, it's in encyclopaedias. There is no debate about who can get into Cleveland, or what it looks like. I can choose to travel to Cleveland, should I choose, no matter what my religious inclination is.

I do not think anyone is not allowed to see the evidence of Cleveland, or allowed to travel there themselves, unless they are not allowed to enter America.

Please, don't get me started on neuroscience.

Let's not, this is a religious question after all. I am just saying that there are other possible explanations. But, the scientific explanation does not change how one feels when in love, nor the importance many people attach to this emotion, myself included.

That's unfortunate that you get those kinds of answers, but that's not the fault of religion. I got cop-out answers from my science teachers all through school, that didn't stop me from becoming one.

What I am saying is that people deserve a better answer than "God did it" or "science did it" should a person be curious enough to ask, you included. For some people, having a name to a process is enough. But I want deeper answers than that. I want to know how scientific processes work, or how exactly "God did it". If you don't want answers, you might as well dismiss everything down to magic tricks.

Cherry-picking fallacy. How about all the ones that don't organize protests? On what grounds do you take such a stereotyping and unscientific sample of heterogenous theists?

For that matter, doesn't it matter what they are protesting? If they are protesting in favor of gay rights, how does that make them intolerant?!

You do bring up two excellent points. I do agree that not all religious groups protest, and not all of those protests are intolerant. In fact, some of them are quite tolerant. As I often have said before, I know that some religions do not do the things that I dislike, and have listed, but I write to say that I dislike the religions that do these things.

If a religious group is protesting to increase rights for homosexuals, or for any other minority, for that matter, I support that wholeheartedly.

However, if a protest group is against gay rights, or against the rights of any other minority that they dislike, for example, doesn't that make them intolerant? You can't tell me that there are no religious groups that do not protest about homosexuality, which is the example it seems we will be using.

All of that said, I do recognise that there are many religions that do not do this. Again, thanks for finding the time to reply.

 

[gnostic]

I have far more concerns with Abrahamic religions than I have with polytheistic religions.

 

[MBones]

Yes Fluffy, most of the wars today and yesterday were started by religious beliefs. If you don't believe that then look at your history books, and plus look at the war today in Iraq>>> It was started by a man whose beliefs of an evil axis, started it. Where did he get the idea of an evil axis??? IN his beliefs in Christianity. Yes that is true. Religion is the problem in the world today, and if you don't see that, then you are probably part of the problem of accepting people how they are, not trying to make them something they are not.

 

[MBones]

Excuse me Peace4all,
If I did call someone's belief stupid, then I apologize. I believe in a higher power but one that has not been highly financed by the corrupt religions of this world. My point is that all human beings are the same, and I support no prejudice towards any person for expressing their beliefs. But I draw the line at religious people who kill innocent civilians over a belief that they are better than them, and we see it everyday. Christians going to the worlds of South America spreading the good word of the bible. Trying to convert these native people from their long endeared traditions towards a new world idea. That I think is totally wrong. Religion is fine but don't try to impress your thoughts on those who have their own. Leave them alone.

 

[rojse]

As MBones pointed out: (I am kicking myself for not putting this in previously)

14. The loss of culture, language, and localised religions due to religious conversion.

 

[rojse]

If you want to add to the list, just put in the number after my latest set of rants.

 

[Booko]

Before I start, thanks for your earlier clarifications, rojse.

13. I would say yes, that intolerance is in line with the old religions. Although I do try and not use one religion as an example, I will make an exception. In the Bible, God ordered the slaughter of a city because they did not worship him. That's pretty intolerant to me.

It's also not taking into account the humans who recorded that historical event and the culture they lived in, which attributed much to God that we would not.

It was really not that long ago (a couple of centuries or so) that our culture would've seen an epidemic of cows getting sick and blaming it on demons. That would not mean, however, it was actually demons that did it. It would be seeing a historical event through the eyes of a culture that, to us, is pretty strange.

As for intolerance in any particular religion, I believe it would be incorrect to assume that it can be represented by a horizontal line. Periods of intolerance and tolerance in any religion seem to come and go. Take Christianity, for example -- it's become far more tolerant in the past century or so that there's really no comparison to the darker periods before. But in the earlist days of their faith *they* were the tolerant ones. The people who came together under the banner of Christ in its earliest days, if they had remained in their respective cultures, would not have been caught having dinner together.

As for newer people not having been around to have committed atrocities, the Church is an entity, that has an existence outside of it's members. Governments give apologies, although the present people in power may not have done whatever it is that they are apologising for. Businesses may apologise, although those apologising may not have been involved in the action that occurred years ago, under different leadership.

That is why I believe it is important for *institutions*, be they religious, business or governmental, acknowledge prior mistakes and apologize for them.

*I* may have no need to apologize for slavery in my home state of Georgia, for instance, because my ancestors weren't even here yet, except for the few that were here millenia before slaveholders turned up.

But I'm darned if I can figure what terrible harm it would do for the State of Georgia to fess up and apologize.

Religious institutions have apologized as well. I know it was long overdue, but I do remember Pope JP2 apologizing for that mess with Galileo. Better late then never.

Here are a few particulars:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,230447,00.html

 

[Booko]

14. The loss of culture, language, and localised religions due to religious conversion.

Yes, religion can do this. But don't other things beside that cause loss of culture?

Trade, military conquest, colonization, just to name a few.

(I know you aren't referring to "all" religion here, but still I'd point out that in my religion we make a point of encouraging preservation of culture. "Unity in diversity" is the usual catchphrase.)

 

[rojse]

Well, if the Bible is not a literal account of God's deeds and will, then it has an element of falsehood about it. According to that logic, if the Bible is correct in this instance, God ordered the slaughter of that city. If the Bible is a fabrication in this regard, then we cannot accept it's authenticity in any regard whatsoever, because if that one book is full of lies, then the rest of it could be too.

Thank you for that link. Enjoyed reading it. It is nice to see some people able to accept the gravity of the sins of their institution in previous times, although this does not reflect on them today.

I completely agree with what you say in regards to apologies.

 

[rojse]

The point I was trying to make was that there would be less loss of culture, language and localised religion due to religious conversion.

I do agree that there are other attributing factors to loss of native cultures, and you mentioned several quite good examples.


Many military conquests could be attributed to religion, whether those people originally gave religious reasons because they were the truth to them, or used them as straw men to hide their real reasoning.

 

[Xbones]

No kidding. Are you stating what the priests did that were part of the catholic church should be forgiven????? Do you forgive them for their sins??? I don't that is ridiculous. We put standard citizens away for molestation but give a chance to a priest who has done it. That is not right. No matter how you look at it. They were the upholder of religion and faltered, how are we supposed to carry on worshipping that same religion when they obviously had no fear, and did what they did.

 

[Yerda]

I generally don't have a problem with religion, even the dreaded organised sort. I think I've grown out of the 'rebellion for rebellion's sake' attitude now. My major gripe is that I find it to be mostly inaccessible, and the little value that I can take without extensive effort tends to be codified in all sorts of symbolic nonsense and has the unfortunate effect of conveying literal, counter-productive, and often dangerous meaning to people.

 

[sojourner]

Well, if the Bible is not a literal account of God's deeds and will, then it has an element of falsehood about it. According to that logic, if the Bible is correct in this instance, God ordered the slaughter of that city. If the Bible is a fabrication in this regard, then we cannot accept it's authenticity in any regard whatsoever, because if that one book is full of lies, then the rest of it could be too.

Thank you for that link. Enjoyed reading it. It is nice to see some people able to accept the gravity of the sins of their institution in previous times, although this does not reflect on them today.

I completely agree with what you say in regards to apologies.

I wouldn't say that it has an "element of falsehood." Falsehood implies lack of truth. But it does have non-factual elements. That's why it's mythical, and a myth does not lie. A myth states a truth about the theological system it portrays.

Archaeologically, we're not sure that "God destroyed the city." But the writers portrayed that event in that way in order to state a theological truth.

The story may be completely allegorical. The Bible is not a history book. The story may be a theological reflection of a real-time event. There is some evidence to show that Sodom may have been destroyed by brimstone. But nothing conclusive. The writers told the story based upon theology, not history.

The Bible is authentic inasmuch as it preseves the different theological traditions of its writers and audience.

The trouble with religion begins when our literalistic perception colors the underlying truth of the scripture.

 

[sojourner]

Earlier in this thread, in Post #75, I wrote about some of my complaints with religion, and someone else wrote theirs, too. We got up to nine points. I though I would add some more points to my list.

As before these posts are generic - I am not trying to blame one religion in particular, or one set of religions, either, but saying some of the things that I do not like about religion in the general sense.

In no particular order:
10. A lack of falsifiability for religion - there is no way to disprove God, his religious works, or ideas inspired by these religious works
11. A lack of logic for religion
12. A lack of tolerance in religions towards other religious beliefs
13. A lack of accountability in religions - no religion that I am aware of has accepted the consequence of it's past actions or teachings.

Obviously, I would like for anyone who feels that my statements are wrong to say why this is so.

10) Why should this pose a problem? There's no way to falsify Saturn, either. It just is what it is.
11) Hmm. Seems to me that some bodies base their beliefs upon a tripod that includes reason.
12) Lack of Tolerance? Have you been to a UU service?
13) Then you're relatively unaware.

While any of these may pose problems in some cases, they cannot generally be applied to all religions. Therefore, they cannot be a list of "what is wrong with [all] religion." Only "what may be wrong with some religions."