Should religion be tolerated?

[BaronVonKaiser]

Oh, great. Religion = child abuse. Again.
If you two think religion is child abuse, you've led very sheltered lives, and you belittle everything I and countless other children have endured at the hands of real abusers.

I cannot speak about anything you may have gone through, I would never advocate any form of child abuse and it is not my intention to belittle you or any experience you've had. However, someone having endured some worse form of child abuse does not make other forms any less heinous. If parents decide to mutilate the genetalia of their infant child, I consider that child abuse, if parents take their child to a mohel to have him suck the foreskin off with his mouth, that to me is child abuse. Some poor African girls are still subjected to religious practices where they have to undergo circumcisions, having their genetalia cut off with a sharp stone and sown up with twine. And these are just a few physical abuses that parents put their children through. The incalcuable mental damage being done to a child who is warned that any number of things they may do during their lifetime will result in an eternity of torture. Being taught from a young age that they must follow strict codes of conduct, follow particular rituals, accept their miserable unworthiness compared to that of their unseen god, live the lifestyle of a slave so as to save themselves from unimaginable horrors in the afterlife. I don't know how you can think that is anything less than child abuse.

 

[challupa]

I cannot speak about anything you may have gone through, I would never advocate any form of child abuse and it is not my intention to belittle you or any experience you've had. However, someone having endured some worse form of child abuse does not make other forms any less heinous. If parents decide to mutilate the genetalia of their infant child, I consider that child abuse, if parents take their child to a mohel to have him suck the foreskin off with his mouth, that to me is child abuse. Some poor African girls are still subjected to religious practices where they have to undergo circumcisions, having their genetalia cut off with a sharp stone and sown up with twine. And these are just a few physical abuses that parents put their children through. The incalcuable mental damage being done to a child who is warned that any number of things they may do during their lifetime will result in an eternity of torture. Being taught from a young age that they must follow strict codes of conduct, follow particular rituals, accept their miserable unworthiness compared to that of their unseen god, live the lifestyle of a slave so as to save themselves from unimaginable horrors in the afterlife. I don't know how you can think that is anything less than child abuse.

This post made me think of the "Hell House" that a church puts up at Halloween. Also the movie Jesus camp really made me want to cry when I saw those children in such a state, some of them as young as 5. These things in my opinion are abusive.

 

[McBell]

People keep saying this, and yet STILL no one has come up with a single example of religion providing some benefit that couldn't have been provided without. We all know the evils that religion has aided, but I'm still waiting to hear some good thats come from it.

Please see post #40.
Perhaps you will not ignore it this time?

 

[McBell]

There's no evil that couldn't have happened without religion, either. No, not even the Inquisition.

Thus far he has flat out ignored this fact.
Interesting how he keeps going on without addressing the blatant problems of his argument.
I am half tempted to ask if he is Fish-Hunter using another screen name.

 

[Sunstone]

Religion should be tolerated to the extent it promotes good and not tolerated to the extent it promotes evil.

 

[challupa]

Religion should be tolerated to the extent it promotes good and not tolerated to the extent it promotes evil.

Makes perfect sense to me!:yes: Except how do we get people to agree on what is good and what is evil?

 

[Sunstone]

Makes perfect sense to me!:yes:

Me too!

 

[Diederick]

Please see post #40.
Perhaps you will not ignore it this time?

What religion can't provide for:
- a progressive (or at least not conservative) world-view
- a world-view that is based on reality, for as far as that term can go
- a life philosophy that is not based on punishment and reward
- a life philosophy that seeks to improve the lives of ALL people, not just the fellow deluded
- coming to terms with certain truths, like death, sexuality, race, the temporal world and REAL science
- individualism
- freedom
- an environment in which a child can be raised without its parents indoctrinating it

Love,


Diederick

 

[Diederick]

Oh, great. Religion = child abuse. Again.
If you two think religion is child abuse, you've led very sheltered lives, and you belittle everything I and countless other children have endured at the hands of real abusers.

The existence of extreme evil doesn't render the minor evils unimportant. Abuse is a very broad term, the same goes for child abuse.

 

[ChristineES]

What religion can't provide for:
- a progressive (or at least not conservative) world-view
- a world-view that is based on reality, for as far as that term can go
- a life philosophy that is not based on punishment and reward
- a life philosophy that seeks to improve the lives of ALL people, not just the fellow deluded
- coming to terms with certain truths, like death, sexuality, race, the temporal world and REAL science
- individualism
- freedom
- an environment in which a child can be raised without its parents indoctrinating it

Love,


Diederick

I've never been able to understand why people generalize theists with such a wide brush. Some theists are scientists. Why is raising a child with faith called "indoctrination"? Wouldn't raising a child without faith also be indoctrination? Who said that theists were not individuals? Theists have freedom, too. Theists can be progressive, too. There are plenty of theists who strive to make the world a better place.
In short, there are narrow minded theists but there are also narrow minded atheists.

 

[McBell]

What religion can't provide for:
- a progressive (or at least not conservative) world-view
- a world-view that is based on reality, for as far as that term can go
- a life philosophy that is not based on punishment and reward
- a life philosophy that seeks to improve the lives of ALL people, not just the fellow deluded
- coming to terms with certain truths, like death, sexuality, race, the temporal world and REAL science
- individualism
- freedom
- an environment in which a child can be raised without its parents indoctrinating it

So is it your claim that there is not a single religion that cannot provide for any of the above?

 

[Diederick]

So is it your claim that there is not a single religion that cannot provide for any of the above?

It is not one of the larger religions that will prove me wrong entirely, for sure. Deism might apply, I have no quarrel with Deists. But larger, organized religions will most likely fall - especially on the points of being based on, and affirming of reality, and in supporting Individualism.

So to answer your question: no, I'm very certain there are religions that will provide and probably even be promoting some of the above. What is certain that religion cannot provide - which it will certainly undermine - is the acceptance of reality. It's quite simply by definition that religion cannot coexist with reality-based facts. There will always be a battle between what is true and what people want to believe.

 

[McBell]

It is not one of the larger religions, for sure. Deism might apply, I have no quarrel with Deists. But larger, organized religions will most likely fall - especially on the points of being based on, and affirming of reality, and in supporting Individualism.

Do you acknowledge the difference between "can not" and "will not"?
Do you acknowledge the difference between "religion" and "follower"?

 

[Storm]

What religion can't provide for:
- a progressive (or at least not conservative) world-view
- a world-view that is based on reality, for as far as that term can go
- a life philosophy that is not based on punishment and reward
- a life philosophy that seeks to improve the lives of ALL people, not just the fellow deluded
- coming to terms with certain truths, like death, sexuality, race, the temporal world and REAL science
- individualism
- freedom
- an environment in which a child can be raised without its parents indoctrinating it

Love,


Diederick

More bigotry, with no relationship to reality.

 

[danny vee]

This is something I'm a little torn on, on one hand, I'm inclined to feel that everyone should be able to conduct their lives as they see fit, to live and let live as it were. On the other hand, however, religions in general seem to cross a line, where they begin to enforce their 'divine will' onto the rest of the world. Children across the world get brainwashed to believe that some horrible damnation awaits them unless they seek salvation through their parents religion, religious groups fight amongst each other over conflicting ideoligies and of course faith in and of itself has a tendency to make one shortsighted and biased when it comes to new information that might conflict with said beliefs. All in all it seems to be quite destructive.

Just to help get this topic rolling, take the all too recent example of 9/11, where religious zealots whose faith is unquestionable by anyone, these people willingly gave their lives to carry out the 'divine will' of their religion. And in so doing ended the lives of so many innocent people. How can one be an advocate for religion without advocating the actions of those 'terrorists'. And if you think that their religion is misguided or their interpretation flawed, and that your own religion is superior, aren't you propagating the very mindset that leads to yet more bloodshed in the name of God?

If we didn't allow religion, we'd be like Hitler and Stalin in the 30's and 40's. Shipped off to Siberia for believing. How else would you enforce this kind of a rule? What is wrong with religion if it is carried out non extremely? Religion can help people greatly. Also, no one can be sure of religion being wrong, and incorrect in its teachings of Heaven and God. There are after all a lot of people who say they have been to Heaven, and out of their body. Can you prove these people wrong? Nope. So why convict something you are not sure of? A statement like "religion should not be tolerated" has no basis and is completely wrong.

 

[Diederick]

Do you acknowledge the difference between "can not" and "will not"?
Do you acknowledge the difference between "religion" and "follower"?

Of course, why do you inquire?

Religion is incapable because it is unwilling, and it might want but it simply can't because it would be against itself. The person inside religion is not what matters the more here, the post that started this thread asks us whether religion should be tolerated, not so much the religious.

 

[Storm]

Religion isn't unwilling. It has no emotions or motivations, no more than literature. What you mean is "the religious," but I suspect you're reluctant to phrase it that way, since you couldn't deny the bigotry of it if you did.

 

[McBell]

Religion is incapable because it is unwilling, and it might want but it simply can't because it would be against itself.

How did you come to this conclusion?

The person inside religion is not what matters the more here, the post that started this thread asks us whether religion should be tolerated, not so much the religious.

I agree.
And I say that religion should be tolerated just the same as atheism and agnosticism.

 

[Diederick]

There are after all a lot of people who say they have been to Heaven, and out of their body. Can you prove these people wrong? Nope. So why convict something you are not sure of? A statement like "religion should not be tolerated" has no basis and is completely wrong.

Incredible amounts of things that we can imagine, are forever unprovable - no evidence can be created to render it true or false. This goes for Theism, but also for the FSM, tooth fairies, and (fictional) worlds as described in the Matrix and the Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. All we can do is estimate the chances of such things being true. It is for the author to convince the world that his supernatural idea is true, not for the world to tediously puzzle out all the brainchildren of all madmen in human history*.

"Religion should not be tolerated" might be a bold statement, personally I find it quite effective, however a bit too general. I believe religion should be a personal matter, one that should not find response in society, and especially not in government. It is fine with me if people want to believe in something supernatural for comfort or whatever it is they're looking for. But as soon as that wishful thinking becomes organized religion, I'd like to see it criticized, ridiculed, and disapproved of - so yes: not tolerated.

*Referring to people that claim their fiction is actually not fiction at all, not mr. Douglas Adams, for example.

 

[ChristineES]

I have said this before many times: religion by itself is inanimate. It can't think for itself. So in reality, there is only religious people. And each person (who has religion) has a different view of their own religion- no matter what the faith is.