Scott C.
Just one guy
My experience is very positive. It's your opinion that the acts of the LDS Church are unloving. I see nothing but love in their teachings in this area.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we say organized religion is a positive force in the world with headlines like this?
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
My experience is very positive. It's your opinion that the acts of the LDS Church are unloving. I see nothing but love in their teachings in this area.
And what, spend their time debating instead of experiencing and deepening together? Experiencing and deepening is the most important goal of religion. There is a time to discuss with the outside world and a time to be together.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
This is about the only one from your list I don't like. The rest of your list...let's just say I prefer your made up religion over the real modern religions.
There are tons of studies out there that prove prayers have no effect.
Now, do they make someone feel good, thinking they did something positive to pray for someone? Maybe. But nothing really "happens" as a result of prayer. For example cancer patients who are prayed for die at the exact same rate as cancer patients who aren't prayed for.
Pray all you want, but if you're expecting some result from it, you have the same chance of getting what you prayed for as someone who doesn't pray for that thing.
Okay, I don't see that any of these are traits that apply to ALL religions, and some are only applicable to a few religions or denominations within a religion. And some religions/denominations/religious individuals do the opposite. For example:
-There are religions and denominations and individuals within them who oppose the hatred expressed toward LGBT etc., people. The positive list should include those, and thus both lists will include some cases for and against the oppression/hatred of LGBTs, etc. How do you then weigh these against each other?
Notice, though, that what you and I are counting here as negative/positive with respect to LGBTetc is based on a certain set of values that says that people should not be persecuted and discriminated against for their sexual orientation. Some people--and not necessarily from a religious grounding--might feel that LGBT is wrong on non-religious grounds, that is, they have different VALUES related to sexual expression and behavior, and believe that it is right/good/positive to persecute and discriminate. This certainly conflicts with modern Western liberalism, but that doesn't mean that some people don't think and feel that way, quite apart from their "religion."
What makes the modern Western liberal values the correct standard?
-There are religions/denominations and individuals within them who don't allow their beliefs/practices to interfere with getting the most modern medical treatments, and who encourage other people to do so. So, those should be credited to the good side.
Again, this being a negative of religion has to do with the point of view of those who believe that getting treatment for illness is more important than anything else. What makes the modern Western liberal value the correct standard for deciding whether or not to get
and so on...
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Why can't we be together with the outside world?
When I was a young kid, a large part of the Catholic gatherings the adults had included a lot of Jew bashing. The Jews were forcing their symbols into the malls at Christmas, the Jews were this the Jews were that.
The Catholics were experiencing and deepening. To them it felt like a positive. From a wider view...was it?
Attitudes like yours is why religious people may wish to segregate themselves at times.
vaguelyhumanoid
Active Member
May I kindly request that atheists stop making "anti-religious" arguments that are actually only anti-Abrahamic, or even only addressing Christianity and Islam? My religion isn't anti-sex, anti-queer or based around the threat of eternal punishment, nor does it require any other religion to be untrue.
It would seem the anti-smoking (which now includes anti-vaping) persons fit with this. Much of the time, they come off as (pseudo religious) zealots to me.
1. it teaches un-acceptance or hate towards a certain group.
Obviously.
2. it preaches complete and total submission to a leader or prohibits individuality or free thought.
No to the former (though a tad debatable) and yes to the latter. Go ahead, exercise some 'free thought' with regards to anti-smoking zealots. Let's see how well you hold up.
3. it denies science or discourages medical, scientific, or technological advancements.
Yes on the former, though of course the adherents will use their pseudo science to make you think otherwise. For sure on the latter when eCigs are taking into account (as technological advancement that has made their sole purpose for existing, unnecessary).
4. it promises eternal torture if followers don't obey the rules.
Not eternal, just as long as you are alive.
5. it shames sex or the body.
Not applicable, thank God. Though smoking associated with advertising and making one feel more sexy is inherently shameful and must be censored.
6. it makes people feel bad for, or stops people from, doing things they want to do.
Obvious
7. it makes people do, or makes people feel bad for not doing, things they don't want to do.
Obvious
So, obvious on 3 counts and fairly obvious on 3 other ones. I make this post knowing anti-smoking isn't really really a religion (though is debatable), but to say that zealots exist in many ways and some will try to use science in way to re-inforce their zealotry. But clearly it is pseudo science and clearly we live in a world where free thought that counters the zealots is like telling brainwashed persons, "no, serious, I'm telling you the earth is spherical" when all they'll come back with is, "according to science, it is flat, therefore epic fail on your part."
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Here's my justification of why you can't put "acceptance of gay people" on the positive side for religion.
To be on a checklist of "this is a positive about religion" you have to credit religion for bringing that thing to the table. For example, the one thing I am giving y'all here as a positive for religion is this idea that "it comforts people who are afraid of death." Religion is directly responsible for that comfort. Religion brings the idea of an afterlife, which allows people to think when they die that it is not the end of them. Atheism can't give that comfort. You can't get that comfort from movies, alcohol or your sports team winning the big game. You can rightly credit religion for that.
You can't do the same for acceptance of gay people, not by any stretch. The acceptance of gay people outside of religious circles is damn near 100%. So if you look at religion as a whole...the religious population vs. the non-religious population...acceptance of gay people is near 100% for the non-religious population, more like ~60% for the religious population.
Now, the fact that there are SOME specific religions that don't discriminate against gay people is correct, of course. I'm not stupid, I fully understand and agree with you. I also understand that not all members of religions that have anti-gay sentiment are anti-gay themselves. Example, at some point recently the Catholic population went over the 50% mark for people IN FAVOR of gay marriage rights. This means MORE Catholics support gay marriage than are against it.
But still...it's like 40% of Catholics who are against equal rights for gay people, when it's more like 1% of the non-religious community. What's more is, if you ask a religious person WHY they are against gay people, they will say straight out...it's because of my religious beliefs. They confirm the cause and effect.
The Big Three that dominate the world today still have very high rates of anti-gay discrimination. You can't count this as a positive for religion, it has to be counted as a negative. When you see people on the street corner with anti-gay protest signs, they are never part of a running club, or a book club, or fans of a certain sports team...they are always there because of their religious beliefs, and they will tell you that directly.
Okay, thank you for explaining your thought processes. Don't think I agree completely, but I do get where you're coming from and how you're thinking about it.
Orbit
I'm a planet
I think there is enough factual evidence out there that shows things like this are not isolated incidents. They are a historical pattern associated with organized religions of all types.
Another current example: http://usuncut.com/news/terrorist-blows-up-a-target-bathroom/
I could also post examples of Hindus harassing/killing Christians and Muslims, and Hindus being harassed or killed in turn. I could even find evidence of conflicts involving Buddhists in SE Asia, or the Zionist policies leading to misery in Gaza. It's everywhere.
Last edited:
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Yes you may, however the Abrahamic's make up a significant portion of the religious landscape, so you'll have to be understanding that when people think of religion, in large part these are the religions people think of off the bat.
People don't know what the heck an agnostic polytheist thinks about things. Not that your opinions don't count, but you can't expect when people think of religion that they will put your religion on equal footing with the Big Three or Four that dominate the religious landscape.
It's like saying it's unfair to say "NFL football helmets have logos on the side" simply because of the Browns and one side of the Steelers. You would be technically correct of course, but when people think of football helmets, they think of team logos on the side.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Also please realize my "refuting" of the positives list in large part is meant to be fun and amusing. I really do dislike religion, but I'm not here to lambaste people about it. Most of my friends and family are religious. I just like messing around and having some fun with topics like this.
And the "pros" column still stands at 1!
Okay--and remember, I can be dense sometimes!Also please realize my "refuting" of the positives list in large part is meant to be fun and amusing. I really do dislike religion, but I'm not here to lambaste people about it. Most of my friends and family are religious. I just like messing around and having some fun with topics like this.
And the "pros" column still stands at 1!
And I'll still say the pros should be more, but...I'm getting ready to do out this evening, so we'll see you later!
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Okay--and remember, I can be dense sometimes!
You seem a'ight to me, you are putting up with my shenanigans after all.
Enjoy the night and be thinking of more positives. I'll expect a full report for me to refute in the morning.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Augustus might be overstating things to say that we can't evaluate benefits and costs at all, but I think otherwise there's a valid point here.
If there's a problem with the question, it has to do with evaluating "religion" as a concept first of all, although obviously the OP asks about organized religion, which is potentially an important qualifier. But, to make an analogy, imagine asking whether or not organized politics is a positive force in the world. You might be tempted first of all to wonder whether an alternative to organized politics (in the most general sense) is even possible. It's easy to imagine alternative political systems, or the world divided up into different states, but it's hard to imagine a world without politics because politics seems to flow from fundamental human characteristics that necessitate social organization and our dependency on cultural knowledge. Religion is similar (with possible distinctions of course, for example in being focused on ultimate meanings or discerning something fundamental about the structure of reality), and of course in many societies is never entirely separate from politics. It's also pretty easy to come up with a list of negatives associated with organized political behavior, and a lot of the negatives will actually look quite a bit like the social negatives associated with religion: the in-group/out-group dynamics, ideological dogmatism and intolerance, and etc.
On the other hand, if you replace "organized religion" with some list of traditional religions, with specific beliefs, institutions, and etc., and ask about them not just in general but whether they are a positive force in the world right now, then the argument seems a lot clearer. It eliminates the difficulty of considering augustus' last sentence about history. Maybe some traditional religions were relative forces for good at certain times, but less so now. In a sense, it feels like it has to do with the social forces that lead to them becoming "traditional" in the first place: the reification of dogma and the unwillingness to adapt to new information or embrace different ways of seeing the world. But it's not as clear to me that it's useful to generalize from recognizing a net negative effect in much of traditional religion to an idea that we should think of religion as something that could be eliminated, as is often done (I'm not accusing orbit of this). But only in the same way that it's not clear to me that we could eliminate either organized religion or politics as such. Mostly I think of it as a cultural struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing world.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Attitudes like yours is why religious people may wish to segregate themselves at times.
Lol touche Georgie boy.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You know, people whose experiences were very negative tend to be a whole lot more outspoken than those who leave without incident and maintain good relationships with their still-LDS family and friends.
True, but there are some of us who are doing everything we can to let our positive actions outweigh those negative ones. Once again, just last Sunday, Mormons turned out by the hundreds to march with "Mormons Building Bridges" in support of the LGBT community in Salt Lake City's Pride Parade.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
So which religions are the "real" ones?
No doubt you think all manner of things and manufacture "historical patters" which, amazingly, feed your presuppositions.