Why Anti-Religious and Anti-Theistic Thinking Miss the Mark

[osgart]

I think the best strategy and motivation is to educate people on reality, and give them time and space to run away from bad religion.

Not all religions are equal. Some religions deserve the trash heap when so many people are trying to make gold of them.

The highs of religious certainty give people such motivation to live, and they often fall in love with the motivation it gives them.

Some religions contain bits of wisdom and truth in them, while the whole of it is literally false. People create a false utopia that they easily fall into alignment with because they feel no need to consider anything different as being reality. They fall into a box and can't see outside the box. Or they might be afraid to see outside the box.

So being militantly against something only draws more divisions, and adverserial conditions. It doesn't help those who desperately need a way out of their religion.

And a lot of so called religious are not truly religious, and that muddys the waters. They latch on for other reasons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What you showed actually does imply that Hitler was ahead of his time in certain ways. Also, in other ways he was pretty backward. People are multifaceted. Everybody, even the worst individual, has qualities that are admirable. It is just that they end up doing something or think up ideas that are so horrendous that they define who he/she is. Humans also have a weird sense of judging people. Because Hitler existed in the last century, people are emotionally attached to what he did that nobody can outwardly say that they admire him at all. But historians speak admiringly of certain things that Alexander and Ghengis Khan did yet they were bloodthirsty warmongers. People today love movie villains such as Joker, Lex Luther and others even though they are considered pure evil. Wait a millennium and Hitler will be admired for the traits that you mentioned.

Same thing with religion. Some religions commit atrocities that define what they are in a negative light. But they also have good in them. Religions also evolve to suit the periodic context so certain parts of them are emphasised based on what their followers need at the time.

So the reality is, ignoring emotional triggers, that everything has positive and negative traits so we cannot say that something or someone is absolutely negative and say we are being realistic. So yes, Islam, Christianity and their holy books have aspects that are beneficial and aspects that are harmful. They are products of the human mind so they will convey the same viewpoints of humans, some bad, some good.

The point was, the good Hitler did amd what good he inspired doesn't change the fact Hitler was an epic **** of a human being and National Socialism qualifies as a motherload of bad ideas.
It's not different with things like the Bible amd Quran. They have good in them. Every monster does. The good does not change this, nor should we downplay this. Things like women's medical and reproductive rights and LGBT equality are still being fought for because the Bible--and the garbage contained within--justifies and even promotes these struggles against a sane and just society where a woman is in charge of her own body. We should not be promoting the nuns doing charity work to ignore and downplay the real superstition and harm "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" has caused.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you exemplify what you mean by 'misinformed and often prejudiced political opinions'?

I have come across this claim before but not with actual examples.

He was the Boy Who Cried Wolf when it came to Canada's transgender name law. He made himself look like quite the arseling over it as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hitler was an individual with agency, whereas religious texts are more often than not mere tools in the hands of the people who choose to employ them in different ways. The impact of any given religious text on the world is often a function of how people interpret and act on it (or not); this isn't the case with a genocidal dictator who explicitly had the goal of eradicating other peoples based on his vision of how the world ought to be.

That aside, Christianity is also far more diverse than an individual. There are Christian denominations that disagree with each other as much as they disagree with people from other religions. From a pragmatic viewpoint, focusing on this potential for diversity and reinterpretation seems to me much more productive than pursuing the eradication of Christianity altogether despite the fact that we have evidence that it can coexist with progressive values and even support them if interpreted and practiced in specific ways.

I am talking about what is in their book. What is factually a part of their religion. It doesn't matter how many Christians claim they are anti-slavery. Jehovah is not. Jehovah wants apostates, gays, bisexuals, rebellious kids, and women who aren't virgins upon being married all killed. And it's overflowing with contradictions. Such as, Jesus said "judge not." Paul gives justification for the thinking of "no True Christian would do that."
Women's rights? The Bible does factually state a women is to hang her head in humility in church, keep quiet, and ask her husband later if she has any questions. It does promote the idea that a woman should be "seen and not heard." It also promotes misogyny where Paul says he will not "suffer a woman to usurp authority over a man."
And let's look at Jesus for a moment. What--truly a serious question--what is so great about him? He said nothing original, he didn't advance morality or ethical considerations (his most widely touted achievement clearly doesn't actually think things through), but he did tell his followers they have to live an ascetic life of poverty and begging and living on what others give them, and also they must put Jesus first and foremost in their life. If the family of a Christian comes before Jesus, Jesus says this person cannot follow him. And in the name of Jesus and his commandments and keeping a holy, righteous house where "me and my family, we will serve the Lord," normally emotional ties and bonds of empathy between parent and child are severed when the child comes out as homosexual and is disowned and kicked out of the home by the Christian parents serving their Lord.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

but I don't see creating a need and then fulfilling it a contribution

This right here is spot on. I'll be burning this one onto my brain.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you have any research to show that the world could do better without those books, and that they have been nothing but detrimental to this world?

Is there any study properly done you could cite?

It's called looking at history and seeing how the Bible and Quran effected it. It's tons of violence, repression, genocide, oppression,more violence, and lots of hate for others. We can even see how some places became anti-LGBT after those religious plagues spread and took hold. We can see where the status of women have been diminished as those plagues spread.
Take the Bible and Quran away, and you take away their readily accessible justifications for wickedness and evil. It won't make the world perfect, but it's something less to cause division and hate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And what are the progressive ideals that religion in the West is actively promoting? Right now, democracy, a very progressive ideal, is in jeopardy. Where are these progressive churches speaking out against antidemocratic forces?

Where? On the side of a man-child president and eagerly defending his ill-liberal amd anti-Christ ways amd defending his man-child tantrum and lies of a "stolen election."
That is where the church stands. They aren't saying "our Lord isn't woke" because they care about freedom of speech. They hate freedom of speech when they don't like it, and they just want to be bigots and not be called out for it.
Hungary is another fine example of where the church stands in regards to our values. It stands against them because our values and church/Biblical values are inherently incompatible.
That is where the church stands. Much like how it stood on the wrong side in regards to the Nazis.

 

[firedragon]

It's called looking at history and seeing how the Bible and Quran effected it.

Stats?

 

[SomeRandom]

Ha. He could be quite funny for an obvious troll. I heard he's making a comeback as an ex-gay.

Lol
That he is. His partner has been “demoted” to roommate.
Reminds me of those interviews of that Dave Rubin guy with other conservatives. He always looks so sad and defeated when they all but openly deride his sexuality. Can’t decide who has less backbone, if I’m honest.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I don't know man when the most vocal religious groups are shouting to kill me because their God doesn't like my sexual preferences makes me really question the need for religions especially when all the good things we get from religions is possible in secular communities.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Stats?

How about I give names?
Vlad Dracul III was a Christian man, late-era Crusader, and believed he was doing God's work. "Kill them all and let god sort them out," the original form of that saying comes from a Papal Edict from Pious III. Oliver Cromwell was a military dictator. The Southern Baptist Church exists because they wanted to continue to support slavery while the Baptist Church became abolitionists (but slavery is Biblically justified and permitted). Eastern Lightning is one of many terrorist Christian groups. There is NARTH and other anti-LGBT groups who are fueled by Biblical justification for their hatred.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The main problem with this is that it assumes reformist readings of religious texts are either "not honest" or should be dismissed along with extremist readings. I look at this from a pragmatic viewpoint: these religious texts aren't going anywhere for the foreseeable future, and as in the case of many Christian denominations, we have evidence that they can be fitted to a more modern, progressive understanding of the world.

While the original context of some texts may be unsavory, this doesn't mean a religious reformer has to brush said context aside or dismiss the religion altogether either. It isn't about finding the good in religions and ignoring or glorifying the bad parts; it's about reinterpreting the historically bad parts in such a way that their harmful impact on the world is negated or diminished. I believe supporting this kind of reform and reinterpretation is both possible and the most realistic approach to take toward religions.

There is no cutting out the ****. Jesus himself said nothing changes, and those who teach a "lesser form" will be counted among the least in the Kingdom.
There is no reason we should try to redeem a book that says things like "a man may sell his daughter into slavery" or "if a man lies with a man as he would a women, they are to be put to death, their blood is on their hands." Considering virgin women as a part of plunder when a city is sacked is not something that should be revised. It's evil. Beating your slave as hard as you want as long as they recover in a few days because the slave is your property is not worthy of revisionist anything. A book that teaches it should be condemned as evil. It's so bad that one of god's prophets had some kids killed--mauled to death by a bear--because they were calling him baldy.
It's as deranged and misguided as those who are into revisionist history for the Civil War. Or revising things to focus on the Vikings looking for lands to build and grow and highlighting their seafaring abilities while ignoring the fact they raped, plundered, pillaged, burned, enslaved, terrorized, and butchered their way across Europe (and the ancient Hebrews on war path were not really any better - not even cattle was safe from them).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know man when the most vocal religious groups are shouting to kill me because their God doesn't like my sexual preferences makes me really question the need for religions especially when all the good things we get from religions is possible in secular communities.

It's not just the groups but the so-called "good book" itself. So what is a Christian to do? Deliberately fail to follow god's commands and orders? Or follow them out like an obedient and observant Christian ought?
Christianity does not permit homosexuality or bisexuality. There is no getting around this. Those churches who teach otherwise are wrong and violating Jesus' warning about lessening the Law.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

It's not just the groups but the so-called "good book" itself. So what is a Christian to do? Deliberately fail to follow god's commands and orders? Or follow them out like an obedient and observant Christian ought?
Christianity does not permit homosexuality or bisexuality. There is no getting around this. Those churches who teach otherwise are wrong and violating Jesus' warning about lessening the Law.

I agree with your statement, but it's hard to deny that there are churches who are accepting of the LGBQT community.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree with your statement, but it's hard to deny that there are churches who are accepting of the LGBQT community.

There are. It was even an Episcopalian priest who openly accepted homosexuals into his church long before the term "affirming church" was used who helped me get over the animosity I held towards all things Christian after I left the Church.
But it cannot be ignored the Bible says everyone who isn't straight is to be put to death. It is in there. It is the law of their god according to their god's prophets. Even Jesus is not pro-LGBT with statements like "a man shall not wear that which pertains unto a woman." And he affirms he has not changed anything of or undone the Laws and Prophets. Jesus clearly didn't discriminate when it came to miracles, and he freely associated with most people, but he also reinforced his Father's laws and preached about a lot of fire, darkness, punishments, burning, wailing, and teeth gnashings for those who don't follow his Father's ways. He basically said "My Father's laws and ways are still the same, but try to think about someone treating you the way you are treating others and show them love in kindness in your actions and considerations."

 

[firedragon]

How about I give names?
Vlad Dracul III was a Christian man, late-era Crusader, and believed he was doing God's work. "Kill them all and let god sort them out," the original form of that saying comes from a Papal Edict from Pious III. Oliver Cromwell was a military dictator. The Southern Baptist Church exists because they wanted to continue to support slavery while the Baptist Church became abolitionists (but slavery is Biblically justified and permitted). Eastern Lightning is one of many terrorist Christian groups. There is NARTH and other anti-LGBT groups who are fueled by Biblical justification for their hatred.

Thats just not valid. TO make claims like you are making, you have to have valid research with statistics.

Otherwise its just a statement with a prejudice towards who you believe are your kind, against who you believe are not your kind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thats just not valid. TO make claims like you are making, you have to have valid research with statistics.

Otherwise its just a statement with a prejudice towards who you believe are your kind, against who you believe are not your kind.

I pointing at specific people and events who used the Bible to justify their cruelty and barbarism.
You can't bring up statistics for every research. Sometimes it's not really possible. But we can see where relieving birthing pains was something Christians in years past were reluctant to do because it was their curse from Jehovah to have them. We can examples where, using the Bible, people were brutally executed as witches, heretics, and other manner of imaginary crimes against their god.
This is what the Bible has done. Because much of it is directly stated and taught in the Bible. You take that away, you take away that justification. They can't condemn and hate someone because they openly and joyfully do something some profit said his god said is sinful and bad. They have to find another reason. And it's just not always there. Sometimes the justification is needed. Homosexuals and bisexuality is not always hated or condemned. But it's far more common where people are told by "god" it's wrong. Women aren't always equal to men, but the most common religions do have a book that relegates women to a status beneath men. And it's certainly found much more commonly in those areas under that influence than in many pagan cultures where sometimes women held positions of the highest prestige along with men.
If we're going to say oh well, and act like it's "missing the point" to criticize the whole because of the good, we may as well all become national socialist. We'll at least get good animal rights laws, have encouragement to be healthy, and personal transportation and mobility for even the poor will be prioritized. Who cares about the genocide partly justified in the name of their Christian faith? It's missing the point to condemn it as a whole it's done a lot of good in the world, and indeed for humanity (Nazi scientists developed the rocket technology that allowed us to travel outside kf the Earth).

 

[firedragon]

I pointing at specific people and events who used the Bible to justify their cruelty and barbarism.
You can't bring up statistics for every research. Sometimes it's not really possible. But we can see where relieving birthing pains was something Christians in years past were reluctant to do because it was their curse from Jehovah to have them. We can examples where, using the Bible, people were brutally executed as witches, heretics, and other manner of imaginary crimes against their god.
This is what the Bible has done. Because much of it is directly stated and taught in the Bible. You take that away, you take away that justification. They can't condemn and hate someone because they openly and joyfully do something some profit said his god said is sinful and bad. They have to find another reason. And it's just not always there. Sometimes the justification is needed. Homosexuals and bisexuality is not always hated or condemned. But it's far more common where people are told by "god" it's wrong. Women aren't always equal to men, but the most common religions do have a book that relegates women to a status beneath men. And it's certainly found much more commonly in those areas under that influence than in many pagan cultures where sometimes women held positions of the highest prestige along with men.
If we're going to say oh well, and act like it's "missing the point" to criticize the whole because of the good, we may as well all become national socialist. We'll at least get good animal rights laws, have encouragement to be healthy, and personal transportation and mobility for even the poor will be prioritized. Who cares about the genocide partly justified in the name of their Christian faith? It's missing the point to condemn it as a whole it's done a lot of good in the world, and indeed for humanity (Nazi scientists developed the rocket technology that allowed us to travel outside kf the Earth).

With all due respect, pointing out specific names is not valid to make a generalisation. It becomes rhetoric.

But I can say confidently that Atheists have done worse, secular motivations have done worse and are larger in numbers, and though you speak of Bible and Quran if you study sociology of religion you would note that most of these things you speak of were societal and state motivated things using their theology as a protocol.

But of course you have made a strawman saying "who cares about the genocide partly justified in the name of their christian faith". Maybe you think that you can demonise a theist just because he or she is a theist and that's a good enough response. Nope. There is enough study on the murders that happened in Europe, the reformation, etc etc etc, but what is the research it was done "BECAUSE OF THE BOOK"? But I can provide you research that proves Stalin, the atheist killed double or triple the amount of people Hitler is attributed with. I can give you research to show you Mao killed more than anyone else ever did. Both Atheists, motivated by atheism. But that is not good enough to make generalisations. In fact, it is a crime. And, 93% of all wars recorded in history were motivated by secular wants, not religious motivations. And if you read the encyclopaedia of wars you can make that research.

So now again, dont make a strawman and say something like "are you claiming religious people dont do anything bad" because it is obviously not what I am saying.

When someone justifies an atrocity in the name their faith, whatever it is, it is not really the problem of the faith or the innate problem of the faith, it is an innate problem of the motivator who uses that faith as a protocol. This is very well know, very well documented, and is a big study in Sociology of religion and to a smaller degree in CSR.

So naming people is not enough to provide data for your generalisations. You need research. If not, it is just prejudice.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But I can provide you research that proves Stalin, the atheist killed double or triple the amount of people Hitler is attributed with. I can give you research to show you Mao killed more than anyone else ever did.

And Pol Pot managed to murder a quarter of the Cambodian population!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I can say confidently that Atheists have done worse, secular motivations have done worse and are larger in numbers, and though you speak of Bible and Quran if you study sociology of religion you would note that most of these things you speak of were societal and state motivated things using their theology as a protocol.

They haven't done so in the name of atheism and their is no "atheist bible" to justify good or bad.
And you seemed to miss where I have used examples where it isn't just the state but regular people as well.

With all due respect, pointing out specific names is not valid to make a generalisation. It becomes rhetoric

Amd trying to insist their must be statistics for it proper is pseudo intellectual at best. I don't need statistics. I can point to modern news stories of Christians attacking atheists because they are atheists.
Not all research methodologies are equally adequate for all projects. Just as statistics aren't needed to point out the Bible verses condemning homosexuality get used a lot in the Hellfire and Brimstone churches. That's even the church I went to.

When someone justifies an atrocity in the name their faith, whatever it is, it is not really the problem of the faith or the innate problem of the faith, it is an innate problem of the motivator who uses that faith as a protocol. This is very well know, very well documented, and is a big study in Sociology of religion and to a smaller degree in CSR.

Deflection doesn't work. Like it or not, they use their religion to justify all manner of wickedness, because they have a "sincerely held religious belief" that how they act is how god wants them to act.