Poll: Opposition to religions (the organised kind) - why you might be opposed?

[Mock Turtle]

So, rather than acknowledging the possible role of intolerance, you choose to model it? Very clever.

Well that is a joke, considering the intolerance shown by many of the religious. Not been to many countries?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well that is a joke, considering the intolerance shown by many of the religious. Not been to many countries?

So this thread was posted with the intent to exemplify tolerance by the non-religious?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So this thread was posted with the intent to exemplify tolerance by the non-religious?

Not really - just to ascertain the main reasons why we feel aggrieved so often. And we've had so many nice threads attacking atheists recently, we should at least point out why such might not be useful as well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it interesting that one obvious reason why a person might be opposed to organized religion

• intolerance fed by ignorance on the part of that person

is not a poll option.

Anyway, ignorance of what? The effects? You mean what religions often result in is invisible to us?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well that is a joke, considering the intolerance shown by many of the religious. Not been to many countries?

Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2 comes to mind, methiinks. Please look up tu quoque.

You might wish to stop embarrassing yourself. Your "my **** don't smell" posture is just silly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not really - just to ascertain the main reasons why we feel aggrieved so often.

Then perhaps it should have been posted in the Pouting DIR. Alternatively, you could stop painting with such a broad brush.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2 comes to mind, methiinks. Please look up tu quoque.

You might wish to stop embarrassing yourself. Your "my sh*t don't smell" posture is just silly.

Ta. I'll post this somewhere useful - like next door's rubbish bin.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then perhaps it should have been posted in the Pouting DIR. Alternatively, you could stop painting with such a broad brush.

Paint? That's' for kids innit?

 

[PureX]

I mean...that's a little semantic I feel. If you want to suggest God is not responsible for the bad...or good....religions do, then sure. And obviously religions are made up of people, each of whom needs to take personal responsibility for their actions.

But religions are things made by men. And just like the fact that the person who installed your metaphorical sign shares responsibility with the buffoon who actually dumps toxic waste, I don't think it's unreasonable to assign blame...or credit...to religions as a whole for their actions. As we do to nations, and as we do to businesses.

Religions don't 'act'. So it's foolish to blame religions for their 'actions'.

Knives are "things made by men", but only a fool would assign blame to the knife for one person stabbing another.

 

[PureX]

I'm sure all the religions are grateful for such - and no doubt disclaim all wrongs done in their name - but is that going to change anything?

Religions cannot claim nor disclaim anything. You have anthropomorphized religion the way theists anthropomorphize 'God'. And you have endowed it with a mind and a will of it's own. And with the capacity to act in accord with that will in the real world.

Why would you do this?

 

[Heyo]

Religions don't 'act'. So it's foolish to blame religions for their 'actions'.

Knives are "things made by men", but only a fool would assign blame to the knife for one person stabbing another.

Can a football team win a match? Can you buy something from a company? Can country sign a contract?
Countries, corporations and teams are all constructs, groups of people we arbitrarily assign an entity status to. And we do that for a reason.

 

[PureX]

Can a football team win a match?

No. Only the members, acting cooperatively, can.

Can you buy something from a company?

No. We can only buy from someone representing the company.

Can country sign a contract?

No, only humans can sign documents.

Countries, corporations and teams are all constructs, groups of people we arbitrarily assign an entity status to.

It is foolish and illogical to assign "entity" to them. They are groups of people with similar interests. They are not "entities".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religions don't 'act'. So it's foolish to blame religions for their 'actions'.

Knives are "things made by men", but only a fool would assign blame to the knife for one person stabbing another.

Whereas comparing complex organisations with dogma, expectations on members and heirarchies with a piece of metal is sensible?

Give me a break.

 

[osgart]

My only grievance is that those with certain religious goggles feel like they got special insight into non believers as being wicked.

Being on the total other side of those specific religions I can see how amazingly ludicrous they are. They got the blinders on, and they run that race all the way to the grave.

Other organized religions that don't cast this stigma upon non believers, well, they don't bother me whatsoever.

 

[PureX]

Whereas comparing complex organisations with dogma, expectations on members and heirarchies with a piece of metal is sensible?

Give me a break.

Religions are a collection of rules, rituals, images, objects, texts, stories and traditions that humans use to help them live according to a chosen theological proposition. Religions do not make humans behave the way they do. Humans use religions to rationalize and justify behaving the way they want to. They also use politics, money, sex, superstition, and all sorts of other 'tools' to rationalize and justify what they want to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religions are a collection of rules, rituals, images, objects, texts, stories and traditions that humans use to help them live according to a chosen theological proposition. Religions do not make humans behave the way they do. Humans use religions to rationalize and justify behaving the way they want to. They also use politics, money, sex, superstition, and all sorts of other 'tools' to rationalize and justify what they want to.

Again...as I mentioned in my first response...I believe you are being overly semantic to the point of missing the point.

Of course 'religions' don't literally make decisions, and each action taken is a result of a human. And I would be the first to state that humans always need to take personal responsibility for their actions, regardless of the many influencing factors driving them.

But...

Religions impact on people. That is their raison d'etre.
Impacts are complex so apologies for a simplistic and negative example but...
Here in Australia, we've had issues where the Catholic Church has neglected children, specifically through re-assigning pedophile priests to alternative parishes where their has been reason to believe they were failing their flock.

Of course it is not literally the Church doing these things. It's people. Like every other human act.

But the Church heirarchy...again comprising people...were aware of and implemented these actions.

It's possible to say...'Well, the Church took no actions, because it's a Church. It was 13 individual people who took the action.'

Technically... semantically...you might be able to mount a case that it's an accurate point of view.

However it flies in the face of common linguistics, social psychology, group psychology and organisational studies.

On the plus...well...I'm honestly not sure what the plus side is.

Organisations influence relationships and actions of humans. It's not even debatable, which makes it unusual.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Religions cannot claim nor disclaim anything. You have anthropomorphized religion the way theists anthropomorphize 'God'. And you have endowed it with a mind and a will of it's own. And with the capacity to act in accord with that will in the real world.

Why would you do this?

I suppose because those (people) who are the actors in many of the things cited must get their motivation from somewhere, be it religious dogma or doctrine (granted it might not be religious though), but often one can hardly prise apart their beliefs and/or actions from any religious belief they might have. I am certainly not saying that having any particular religious belief necessarily leads one into any particular actions but one can't dispute many of the things on the list as being associated with religions and often being a necessary part of such. The poll was mainly to see which factors were the most likely reasons for hostility towards religions.

 

[PureX]

Again...as I mentioned in my first response...I believe you are being overly semantic to the point of missing the point.

And I believe you are personifying your resentment against bad behavior by others in an imaginary "entity" you call religion. I am trying to explain to you that religion is not an "entity". It's an not even an ideology. It's just a collection of conceptual tools that humans use to rationalize, justify, and act on their own chosen ideologies. Ideologies don't exist outside the human mind. Even when humans think and act collectively, this still does not create an ideological "entity" of it's own. And it's important to understand this.

Of course 'religions' don't literally make decisions, and each action taken is a result of a human. And I would be the first to state that humans always need to take personal responsibility for their actions, regardless of the many influencing factors driving them.

But...

Religions impact on people. That is their raison d'etre.

All tools have an impact on people who use them, and on those around them. They make people more effective at engaging the world around them, including each other. BUT THAT STILL IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE TOOL, regardless of whether that impact is good or bad. And presuming and claiming that it is, is illogical, and fuels illogical and ineffective "solutions".

Here in Australia, we've had issues where the Catholic Church has neglected children, specifically through re-assigning pedophile priests to alternative parishes where their has been reason to believe they were failing their flock.

Of course it is not literally the Church doing these things. It's people. Like every other human act.

But the Church heirarchy...again comprising people...were aware of and implemented these actions.

It's possible to say...'Well, the Church took no actions, because it's a Church. It was 13 individual people who took the action.'

Technically... semantically...you might be able to mount a case that it's an accurate point of view.

However it flies in the face of common linguistics, social psychology, group psychology and organisational studies.

On the plus...well...I'm honestly not sure what the plus side is.

Organisations influence relationships and actions of humans. It's not even debatable, which makes it unusual.

Nothing in the set of religious tools (rules, rituals, texts, images, traditions, etc.) that we call Catholicism led any of the people involved in this to make the decisions they made, or behave as they did. NOTHING. And yet you want to insist that we blame not only Catholicism, but Christianity, and all religion, everywhere on Earth.

Don't you see how wildly illogical this is? And how damaging such a blinding prejudice can become?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And I believe you are personifying your resentment against bad behavior by others in an imaginary "entity" you call religion.

Ugh.
For goodness sake. Replace 'Catholic Church' with literally any other organisation on the planet and replace a specific example with whatever you like.
Organisations effect the social interactions of their members.

I am trying to explain to you that religion is not an "entity". It's an not even an ideology. It's just a collection of conceptual tools that humans use to rationalize, justify, and act on their own chosen ideologies. Ideologies don't exist outside the human mind. Even when humans think and act collectively, this still does not create an ideological "entity" of it's own. And it's important to understand this.

You're arguing against a position you've created.

All tools have an impact on people who use them, and on those around them. They make people more effective at engaging the world around them, including each other. BUT THAT STILL IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE TOOL, regardless of whether that impact is good or bad. And presuming and claiming that it is, is illogical, and fuels illogical and ineffective "solutions".

If you think I'm blaming 'religion' for anything, you're not reading what I wrote.
But specific organisations...businesses, religions, cults, social clubs and any others you care to name...impact the social interactions of their members.
Dance around the semantics however you want.

A gun doesn't kill a person, a person wielding a gun does. But membership in the NRMA will have some sort of impact...positive and negative both...on its collective members.

Nothing in the set of religious tools (rules, rituals, texts, images, traditions, etc.) that we call Catholicism led any of the people involved to make the decisions they made. NOTHING. And yet you want to insist that we blame not only Catholicism, but Christianity, and all religion, everywhere.

What are you smoking? What is it you think I'm blaming Catholicism, Christianity and all religion everywhere FOR??
I wonder if you're so blinded by your pre-prepared position that you neglect to actually read and think about the words I type.

By all means, tell me what I'm blaming religion for.

Don't you see how wildly illogical this is?

You need to discuss the actual posts I'm making before suggesting they're wildly illogical. You're beating the crap out of a strawman right now, and suggesting I can't defend it. Why would I even bother?

 

[PureX]

I suppose because those (people) who are the actors in many of the things cited must get their motivation from somewhere, be it religious dogma or doctrine (granted it might not be religious though), but often one can hardly prise apart their beliefs and/or actions from any religious belief they might have. I am certainly not saying that having any particular religious belief necessarily leads one into any particular actions but one can't dispute many of the things on the list as being associated with religions and often being a necessary part of such. The poll was mainly to see which factors were the most likely reasons for hostility towards religions.

What possible reason would there be for trying to 'pry apart' someone's beliefs from their actions? People are free to believe whatever they want, and nothing you or I or anyone else can do will take away their ability to do that. THANK GOD! Because if we had the ability to do that we would immediately destroy ourselves with it by insisting that everyone think and believe as we do.

So, in the end, it ALL ABOUT OUR ACTIONS, NOT OUR BELIEFS. The religions don't matter. They are just externalized bits and pieces of the ideas that we humans come to think and believe are real and important to us. And there is no controlling that, nor should there be. So let's stop focusing and blaming religion, and focus on the real problem, and that is human behavior. I think we would be far more effective at controlling human behavior if we focused on the behavior itself, and how it harms us individually and collectively. And stop squabbling over the ideologies that we humans use to try and rationalize and justify such destructive behavior. Don't you?