Why do people hate religion? (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

Lol no it wasn't... are you claiming the reason communists comitted 'attrocities' was because they didn't believe in God? We see no evidence that this is a driving force behind their ideas any more than their likes/dislikes when it comes to food.

I think it was a driving force, i mean these dictators basically demolished the church- basically who believed in anything else that what they did. So in that way it was a drinving force.

Its like those that dont share the same the belief - the belief that god doesnt exist gets wiped out.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There is no evidence that they were targetting the religious in particular.

 

[ur_inner_child]

If you want me to clarify what I'm about to post, I will.

Atheism is not "I don't believe in a God and everyone who does must die" because there is no institution of atheism where ideologies and values can be attacked.

Some religions, however, do not favour sinners. In fact they usually have a book and some kind of heirarchy (eg the Vatican) who create a discourse for the religion. The discourses usually (and I emphasise usually) differentiates between those who follow and those who don't (which means not just atheists). It is in your teaching to not look favourably on those who sin (who are more likely than to be non-followers) regardless of whether that is consciously or not.

When I was a die-hard Christian I treated everyone equally, yet simultaneously felt the need to "save" those who did not believe. It's hard to explain and understand, but following on..

In contrast, atheism is not "us" and "them". In fact, atheists only bind together with one small thing, which is the disbelief of God. The rest is determined from person to person, whether it be

- belief in the existence of the supernatural (which might sound like a contradiction but I can discuss this further)
- secular/materialist/humanist/naturalist/ ideals
- their reason to their disbelief in God eg: scientific, philosophical, social etc

In fact, the criticism and hatred toward religious institutions is not exclusive to those who do not believe in a God. In fact, possibly a good percentage of my year (of those religious) at uni holds religious institutions as unfavourable.

While I was Christian, I did not like the fact that we orbited around a text. I never questioned the text, thought it was an awesome text but questioned the nature of reading itself.

This idea to bind all atheists together and to assume their discourses is as silly as binding all males in every part of the world and assuming they feel the same about everything.

I'd also like to stress that I'm arguing by definition (that I feel your idea of atheism is flawed). As I had highlighted before, I find it foolish for "atheist" or "religious" people to rattle off historical events to see who was the "worser" one. Am I the only one that feels that that sort of argument strays from the more important issues within this thread topic? We could really do something here, like discuss the nature of reading in religion, and the idea of "non-believers", rather than resort to "well gUess what yOuR siDe killed pEopLe tOo!"

 

[webby234]

Well its at least a little statistically signficant that all the worlds mass murderers and most of their followers were nonreligious, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and so forth.

I think far more mass murderers were religious. Just for a starter there's
Hitler
Bin Laden
Sadaam Hossain
the IRA, the PLO and many (most?) terrorist organisations
Just about anyone pre-twentieth century - eg Spanish colonialists, the crusades.

 

[HotShot]

If you want me to clarify what I'm about to post, I will.

Atheism is not "I don't believe in a God and everyone who does must die" because there is no institution of atheism where ideologies and values can be attacked.

Some religions, however, do not favour sinners. In fact they usually have a book and some kind of heirarchy (eg the Vatican) who create a discourse for the religion. The discourses usually (and I emphasise usually) differentiates between those who follow and those who don't (which means not just atheists). It is in your teaching to not look favourably on those who sin (who are more likely than to be non-followers) regardless of whether that is consciously or not.

When I was a die-hard Christian I treated everyone equally, yet simultaneously felt the need to "save" those who did not believe. It's hard to explain and understand, but following on..

In contrast, atheism is not "us" and "them". In fact, atheists only bind together with one small thing, which is the disbelief of God. The rest is determined from person to person, whether it be

- belief in the existence of the supernatural (which might sound like a contradiction but I can discuss this further)
- secular/materialist/humanist/naturalist/ ideals
- their reason to their disbelief in God eg: scientific, philosophical, social etc

In fact, the criticism and hatred toward religious institutions is not exclusive to those who do not believe in a God. In fact, possibly a good percentage of my year (of those religious) at uni holds religious institutions as unfavourable.

While I was Christian, I did not like the fact that we orbited around a text. I never questioned the text, thought it was an awesome text but questioned the nature of reading itself.

This idea to bind all atheists together and to assume their discourses is as silly as binding all males in every part of the world and assuming they feel the same about everything.

I'd also like to stress that I'm arguing by definition (that I feel your idea of atheism is flawed). As I had highlighted before, I find it foolish for "atheist" or "religious" people to rattle off historical events to see who was the "worser" one. Am I the only one that feels that that sort of argument strays from the more important issues within this thread topic? We could really do something here, like discuss the nature of reading in religion, and the idea of "non-believers", rather than resort to "well gUess what yOuR siDe killed pEopLe tOo!"

There are athiest organisations, that promote athiesm just like there are groups that promote their beliefs. Atheism is the belief that god doesnt exist. But now when you are athiest - you will sorry towards the believers.. similar to when u were a christian -"trying to save the non-believers'. Its essentially the same thing, a group that does not belive in GOD and a group that does.

Athiests might have different ways to go about belief in no-god just like different religions have different sects and classes.

There is no idea to bind athiest - they are already grouped they have the common belief that god doesnt exist. Although their personal beliefs regarding anthing else maybe also different this also evident from different types of religons. like Christanity believes in Jesus as there god, whilst hinduism believes rock figures as there GOD.

Religion is not necessarily a institution, u do not need to be part of it to belive in it. For example if you believe in one god you do not need to be a islam or a christian etc but you can still believe in it. ITs because its easier to work together and share that it has become institution as such.

 

[Bookie]

Well its at least a little statistically signficant that all the worlds mass murderers and most of their followers were nonreligious, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and so forth.

I think far more mass murderers were religious. Just for a starter there's
Hitler
Bin Laden
Sadaam Hossain
the IRA, the PLO and many (most?) terrorist organisations
Just about anyone pre-twentieth century - eg Spanish colonialists, the crusades.

conflicting arguments.

cannot compute.

*explodes*

 

[bshoc]

I think far more mass murderers were religious. Just for a starter there's
Hitler

Nope

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

and between themselves Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao have killed what, around 200 million people.

Sadaam Hossain
Bin Laden
the IRA, the PLO and many (most?) terrorist organisations
Just about anyone pre-twentieth century - eg Spanish colonialists, the crusades.

Small change compared to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and so on. A few are muslim, the IRA and PLO were more concerned with politics than they are/were with religion.

 

[Bookie]

There are athiest organisations, that promote athiesm just like there are groups that promote their beliefs. Atheism is the belief that god doesnt exist. But now when you are athiest - you will sorry towards the believers.. similar to when u were a christian -"trying to save the non-believers'. Its essentially the same thing, a group that does not belive in GOD and a group that does.

Athiests might have different ways to go about belief in no-god just like different religions have different sects and classes.

There is no idea to bind athiest - they are already grouped they have the common belief that god doesnt exist. Although their personal beliefs regarding anthing else maybe also different this also evident from different types of religons. like Christanity believes in Jesus as there god, whilst hinduism believes rock figures as there GOD.

Religion is not necessarily a institution, u do not need to be part of it to belive in it. For example if you believe in one god you do not need to be a islam or a christian etc but you can still believe in it. ITs because its easier to work together and share that it has become institution as such.

admit it, you got owned by The Chaser.

 

[webby234]

Nope

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html

and between themselves Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao have killed what, around 200 million people.

That's an exaggeration - as a rough estimae
Hitler 6 million
Pol Pot 2 million
Mao 65 million at most
Stalin 43 million
That doesn't add up to 200 million - and i'm using the high estimates here.
Furthermore, I would reiterate that they (apart from Hitler) were motivated by communism and communism is not motivated by atheism.

Small change compared to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and so on. A few are muslim, the IRA and PLO were more concerned with politics than they are/were with religion.

You don't think Stalin etc. were more concerned about politics than their lack of religion? And you're dismissing the crusades and colonialism as small change? In some areas (eg North America) colonialism was effectively genocide.

 

[bored6]

Well its at least a little statistically signficant that all the worlds mass murderers and most of their followers were nonreligious, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and so forth.

Uh oh; don't be so sure of Hitler mate. Its a massive area of debate and personally, if anyone has read Mein Kampf its more then possible that he was in fact a Christian of sorts or at least a (raised as?) believer (for those religous sorts who will cry "oh but hes not a christian because he acted like etc etc").

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]-"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


- [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

-
[/FONT]

Edit: You can't deny these qoutes...despite the context; they at least point to some form of adhereing to Christianity and thus he cannot be classified as atheist

 

[webby234]

There are athiest organisations, that promote athiesm just like there are groups that promote their beliefs. Atheism is the belief that god doesnt exist. But now when you are athiest - you will sorry towards the believers.. similar to when u were a christian -"trying to save the non-believers'. Its essentially the same thing, a group that does not belive in GOD and a group that does.

Yes, but that is a small minority of atheists. I will debate it as I will put forward my arguments on any issue, but i do not "try to save the non-believers".

 

[scarybunny]

If Hitler was in no way religiously motivated, how come the jews had such a bad time?

Just curious.

And just saying he was Christian means nothing by itself. The killing would have to be religiously motivated for it to be relevant at all. Like I can't say I think veganism is bad because Hitler was a vegan.

 

[webby234]

And just saying he was Christian means nothing by itself. The killing would have to be religiously motivated for it to be relevant at all.

Yes, that's what I've argued in reverse - that just because Stalin etc. were atheist doesn't mean it was their atheism that led to their actions. They don't accept my point, so I'm taking similar atrocities committed by Christians to show how it would work both ways.

 

[Calculon]

long time, we havent seen calculon on these boards, i thought u and withoutaface were one and the same?

I got banned for posting horrific images.

 

[Calculon]

I think it was a driving force, i mean these dictators basically demolished the church- basically who believed in anything else that what they did. So in that way it was a drinving force.

Its like those that dont share the same the belief - the belief that god doesnt exist gets wiped out.

They demolished churches because it was an institution which was regarded as divine, something which conflicted with some people's dedication to the communist party.

 

[ur_inner_child]

To add to my personal cry of my falling out of religion, something I can now articulate, I dislike the way some can take religion and use it so that it may cause a state of inaction.

For an extreme example which occured this week, that the end of the world was near, that the sea levels are rising and the storms are increasing - undeniable evidence that God is angry at the secular world.

Honestly, why. Why use religion so that you can accept the current happenings of the world so that you may sit back? There is a reason why the sea levels are rising and the storms are increasing, and whether or not you're a tree hugger, you have to admit that the "God is Angry" vs "We are causing it as a globe and omitting greenhouse gases" (and I do keep in mind those who are aware but are still inactive but seem to have greater reasons for the inactions) surely who is the non-sensical, irrational, insensitive asshole in the story?

No I'm not saying all religious people are like that.

It is the ability to be that way concerns and disturbs me.

The fact that half my uni class is in this train of thought haunts me.

 

[HotShot]

To add to my personal cry of my falling out of religion, something I can now articulate, I dislike the way some can take religion and use it so that it may cause a state of inaction.

For an extreme example which occured this week, that the end of the world was near, that the sea levels are rising and the storms are increasing - undeniable evidence that God is angry at the secular world.

Honestly, why. Why use religion so that you can accept the current happenings of the world so that you may sit back? There is a reason why the sea levels are rising and the storms are increasing, and whether or not you're a tree hugger, you have to admit that the "God is Angry" vs "We are causing it as a globe and omitting greenhouse gases" (and I do keep in mind those who are aware but are still inactive but seem to have greater reasons for the inactions) surely who is the non-sensical, irrational, insensitive asshole in the story?

No I'm not saying all religious people are like that.

It is the ability to be that way concerns and disturbs me.

The fact that half my uni class is in this train of thought haunts me.

=stupid people.

these people are stupid people - who for some odd reason just can accept the fact things happen because of nature. U know if somethin good happens they wil all of sudden say that god is happy.

its just plain stupid. why should they care how god feels? when you cant do anything abou t it lol. its like crying.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There are athiest organisations, that promote athiesm just like there are groups that promote their beliefs. Atheism is the belief that god doesnt exist. But now when you are athiest - you will sorry towards the believers.. similar to when u were a christian -"trying to save the non-believers'. Its essentially the same thing, a group that does not belive in GOD and a group that does.

Athiests might have different ways to go about belief in no-god just like different religions have different sects and classes.

There is no idea to bind athiest - they are already grouped they have the common belief that god doesnt exist. Although their personal beliefs regarding anthing else maybe also different this also evident from different types of religons. like Christanity believes in Jesus as there god, whilst hinduism believes rock figures as there GOD.

Religion is not necessarily a institution, u do not need to be part of it to belive in it. For example if you believe in one god you do not need to be a islam or a christian etc but you can still believe in it. ITs because its easier to work together and share that it has become institution as such.

Been said wayyy too many times before... but:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

Wow.. lol

Anyway, since atheism isn't their motivation... I don't see the point to even bring it up.

 

[mr EaZy]

What then is a moderate position to take on the religious front without believing in God?

agnostic?

 

[mr EaZy]

Wow, thanks for the hefty response. There are a couple things I'd like to say in reply:

1) The cultural stuff I was talking about isn't really a matter of first world / third world or rich and poor - it's a matter of female autonomy and liberation. A region can be relatively poor at the same time as having high standards in other areas like health and women's rights such as the state of Kerala in India. If it is the case that the 2:1 law was written in the Quran because of it's cultural relevance at the time then I feel it should be reevaluated - in particular in cultures where women have the freedom to gain knowledge of the processes of such transactions. However, you have provided other, more interesting arguments...

i hear what your saying and i agree- its like how i said, our prophet's wife was a wealthy, business savvy woman, and there are women in australia who are not business savvy, and there are men in this country who are not business savvy!

thats the way it was back then, and now, in india and in australia- so cultural context to me, is not the explanation of this rule. i only gave an explanation to what people had been saying but then i explained their flaws and how they couldnt be the explanation.

like u said- there were many other arguments

2) Is such a rule (2:1) the best way to create justice? I geuss that depends on how you define the term. I can't really argue against the 'wisdom of god', the best I could do is to dig up statistics showing how the rule has led to injustice - something you could simply counter by saying it was the human error in applying the rules of the quran, not the rules themselves, which led to injustice. However, another possibility is that the collection of rules for how a society should operate found in the Quran could also be culture relative, making them perfect for two millenia ago but in need of revision in order to serve the modern world.

3) Whether or not the rule is just/unjust I think it has the potential to be misinterpreted by people. There is little danger for those like you who study rigorously and think about and question things but there is something strong about the 2x = 1y statement which, I believe, could consciously or subliminally lower one's percieved status of women. I may be wrong in this, but I do believe it may lead to a damaging effect.