Feel very depressed when I see what religion causes

Spirogyra

Hi does anyone else feel really depressed when they see is being done to people in the name of religion?. I'm referring primarily to Islam, floggings for playing domino's in Indonesia, rape by 8 men and flogging for being suspected of having an affair, Iranian actress to be flogged, possibly for being kissed on the cheek. It just seems savage and like a war against women.

Read today that only humans believe in supernatural beings that they have never seen. So much for intelligence.

People in these countries are not allowed to question, not allowed to express their own opinion, beaten or killed if they dare to question , never mind express atheistic views.

The lights have gone out on a lot of the world. Will not see them lit again in my life time.

jonnny68

Yeah it's disgusting alright the root of all evil and the world would be a far better place without it

Turtwig

I'm going to depress you a little further so and point out that's not all solely down to religion. Humanity's history is littered with unethical actions. We've been a horribly violent, superstitious and repressive species.

The thing that cheers me up is that humans today are in general nowhere near as violent or repressive as the past. The lights are only finally turning on in this world. Still got a lot more light to switch on though.

J C

Turtwig wrote: »

I'm going to depress you a little further so and point out that's not all solely down to religion. Humanity's history is littered with unethical actions. We've been a horribly violent, superstitious and repressive species.

The thing that cheers me up is that humans today are in general nowhere near as violent or repressive as the past. The lights are only finally turning on in this world. Still got a lot more light to switch on though.

I agree with every word you have just said.:cool:

DazMarz

I would argue it is less to do with religion than people who are morally bankrupt, yet use religion as the excuse/rationale/reason/whatever.

For sure, religion is backwards and, as Marx said, an opium for the masses. But at the same time, the most basic, basic, tenet of most religions (when you get past absolutely everything else), is basically to be a good person and be kind to everyone. Basically, that is it.

But, of course, the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever is longer than that sentence. There is a lot of other stuff there that is wide open to interpretation, manipulation and abuse. There are so many stories in those religious texts that contradict each other and give different meanings and so on. It is just phenomenal.

Also, when people take those texts literally, you are running into problems. Serious problems. Because there are passages in those texts that advocate violence. The Koran has sections that advocate the spread of Islam across the world at the point of a sword. The Bible advocates slavery and genocide in the Old Testament. The Torah is essentially the Old Testament, so same goes.

But the fact of the matter is, I know Catholics who are very great and decent people. I know Muslims who are sound out. A couple of American Jewish guys went to university with me (though, in fairness, they were about as Jewish in practice as a ham sandwich [an item they had for lunch a lot, so go figure]). The point? Of the majority of people I know who are adherents to certain religions, most of them do not let it impact greatly upon their own lives or the lives of anyone else.

For sure, there are fanatics everywhere who will use religion as a flag of convenience to justify their actions. Would the world be better off without religion? For sure it would. But is religion the sole cause of all evil and bad? No, the human condition and human nature causes some of the worst grotesqueries in history. Religion can be the main reason put forward, but it takes a particularly warped and twisted individual (or group) to actually initiate a Crusade or a Jihad. Normal people, while perhaps being part of the same tapestry as the fanatics, generally do not engage in such murderous blood-letting.

The other issue apart form violence would also be the holding back of progress and the stifling of scientific advancement (usually to the detriment of mankind). This is an accusation that can be much more fairly levelled at religion, in my opinion. Because even the nicest, most peaceful and kind adherents of a religion may decide to oppose abortion/gay-rights/science in a peaceful way (or in a more damaging way; at the ballot box) simply because their religion tells them to.

This holding back of progress is also usually very insidious and does not attract as much attention as the violent acts.

Basically, I'm rambling... but I think that to solely blame religion is a bit short-sighted.

The old saying:

I like God... it's his fan club I'm not too keen on.

is very apt here.

Akrasia

J C wrote: »

I agree with every word you have just said.:cool:

For a bit of unfettered optimism, I recommend two books 'Better angels of our nature' by Stephen Pinker
and Abundance by Peter Diamandis

Religious extremism is a tough nut to crack, but it tends to rely on closed repressive regimes who indoctrinate young people with propaganda and withhold information about other world views.

With the rapid spread of internet access, it is going to get harder and harder for extremist regimes (and parents) to control all of the information available to their children.

Akrasia

DazMarz wrote: »

I would argue it is less to do with religion than people who are morally bankrupt, yet use religion as the excuse/rationale/reason/whatever.

For sure, religion is backwards and, as Marx said, an opium for the masses. But at the same time, the most basic, basic, tenet of most religions (when you get past absolutely everything else), is basically to be a good person and be kind to everyone. Basically, that is it.

But, of course, the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever is longer than that sentence. There is a lot of other stuff there that is wide open to interpretation, manipulation and abuse. There are so many stories in those religious texts that contradict each other and give different meanings and so on. It is just phenomenal.

Also, when people take those texts literally, you are running into problems. Serious problems. Because there are passages in those texts that advocate violence. The Koran has sections that advocate the spread of Islam across the world at the point of a sword. The Bible advocates slavery and genocide in the Old Testament. The Torah is essentially the Old Testament, so same goes.

But the fact of the matter is, I know Catholics who are very great and decent people. I know Muslims who are sound out. A couple of American Jewish guys went to university with me (though, in fairness, they were about as Jewish in practice as a ham sandwich [an item they had for lunch a lot, so go figure]). The point? Of the majority of people I know who are adherents to certain religions, most of them do not let it impact greatly upon their own lives or the lives of anyone else.

For sure, there are fanatics everywhere who will use religion as a flag of convenience to justify their actions. Would the world be better off without religion? For sure it would. But is religion the sole cause of all evil and bad? No, the human condition and human nature causes some of the worst grotesqueries in history. Religion can be the main reason put forward, but it takes a particularly warped and twisted individual (or group) to actually initiate a Crusade or a Jihad. Normal people, while perhaps being part of the same tapestry as the fanatics, generally do not engage in such murderous blood-letting.

The other issue apart form violence would also be the holding back of progress and the stifling of scientific advancement (usually to the detriment of mankind). This is an accusation that can be much more fairly levelled at religion, in my opinion. Because even the nicest, most peaceful and kind adherents of a religion may decide to oppose abortion/gay-rights/science in a peaceful way (or in a more damaging way; at the ballot box) simply because their religion tells them to.

This holding back of progress is also usually very insidious and does not attract as much attention as the violent acts.

Basically, I'm rambling... but I think that to solely blame religion is a bit short-sighted.

The old saying:

I like God... it's his fan club I'm not too keen on.

is very apt here.

I like the Stephen Weinberg quote

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Take the most hated family in america, the Westboro Baptist Church. A lot of that family were fundamentally decent people who have since left the church, but for a long time, their mind was poisoned by being constantly told that they had to behave and think a certain way or else they would spend eternity in hell.

Since the RC church's influence has collapsed in Ireland, the country has become a much much more tolerant place. People's genetics haven't changed, only the dominance of a theocratic ideology that demanded adherence to the repressive mysogynistic homophobic catholic ethos.

Spirogyra

I feel a bit despairing when i see so many women in hijab,all based on the words of a 6th century Arab, i feel despair not so much at the covering of hair,some of the scarves look faintly pretty,but the world view which this symbolises....i fear for civil liberties in the future.....

Akrasia wrote: »

I like the Stephen Weinberg quote


Take the most hated family in america, the Westboro Baptist Church. A lot of that family were fundamentally decent people who have since left the church, but for a long time, their mind was poisoned by being constantly told that they had to behave and think a certain way or else they would spend eternity in hell.

Since the RC church's influence has collapsed in Ireland, the country has become a much much more tolerant place. People's genetics haven't changed, only the dominance of a theocratic ideology that demanded adherence to the repressive mysogynistic homophobic catholic ethos.

Hoagy

DazMarz wrote: »

But at the same time, the most basic, basic, tenet of most religions (when you get past absolutely everything else), is basically to be a good person and be kind to everyone. Basically, that is it.

No it isn't. The most basic tenet of most religions is that there is an afterlife where the select (and only the select) can party for eternity.

That's the problem right there. People who believe that this life is just a rehearsal for the next one will get up to all kinds of mischief.

Personally I think that atheists are the only people who are fit to govern.

Turtwig

What if the atheist is supremely superstitious, an ardent of follower of eugenics, homophobic, sexist, and believes homoepathy is the most the effective form of medicine; the rest should be outlawed?

Hoagy

Turtwig wrote: »

What if the atheist is supremely superstitious, an ardent of follower of eugenics, homophobic, sexist, and believes homoepathy is the most the effective form of medicine; the rest should be outlawed?

Picky.

smacl

Turtwig wrote: »

What if the atheist is supremely superstitious, an ardent of follower of eugenics, homophobic, sexist, and believes homoepathy is the most the effective form of medicine; the rest should be outlawed?

Obviously not, because atheism does not describe a group like minded people. In fact it says nothing about the commonality of people other than they don't believe in god. You might as well suggest we should ban the colour blue if someone wearing a blue t-shirt commits an unspeakable act.

Atheism isn't analogous to a religion in any way.

smacl

Hoagy wrote: »

Personally I think that atheists are the only people who are fit to govern.

Yet if you were to make a list of people who have done a good job governing in the past, you'd find religion well represented. Similarly, if you were to look ar evil despots through history, atheists would be in the mix there too.

Personally I think secularist governance works well, but you can and do have ardent secularists with religious leanings.

jank

jonnny68 wrote: »

Yeah it's disgusting alright the root of all evil and the world would be a far better place without it

Man is the root of all evil. Ideology, religion, power and so gives this 'evil' its own different color.

jank

Hoagy wrote: »

Personally I think that atheists are the only people who are fit to govern.

They don't have a great track record themselves either.

Absolam

Spirogyra wrote: »

Read today that only humans believe in supernatural beings that they have never seen. So much for intelligence.

I think weasels might believe in supernatural beings that they have never seen. And they're reasonably bright.

How does anyone know that only humans believe in supernatural beings that they have never seen?

jank wrote: »

Man is the root of all evil. Ideology, religion, power and so gives this 'evil' its own different color.

A bit of genocide might do us a world of good then?

jank

Absolam wrote: »

A bit of genocide might do us a world of good then?

Possibly, if you are a believer in population control.

Cork boy 55

Don't worry The awakening is coming

The Oriental mystery cults are dying

In the near future the awakening will occur.
An event when Atheism, education, science, logic and rationality reaches a critical mass of the humanoid population and these cults collapse rapidly into a morbid dying heap.

The Awakening is the theoretical emergence of a 99% Atheist society through Rational means. Since the capabilities of such rationality would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the Awakening is seen as an occurrence beyond which events cannot be predicted.

Proponents of the Awakening typically state that an "Atheist explosion", where logic designs successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, might occur very quickly and might not stop until the Atheist's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any god.

The unknown future rolls toward us, the rational awakening of the population has only just started where it leads is a matter of futurology and could turn in multiple directions depending on the undermined variables of technological change and environmental degradation and demographic collapse.

Just imagine, Temples to mother-earth(earth labs) in every community where
awakened enlightened free humanoid volunteers come together to engage in environmental education and activism and worship environmental scientific atheism in order to establish a sustainable environmental for man and nature on the Earth planet.

This is the future.

"Rocky mountain high .... Colorado"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLWD2WIvRQk

Solar temple in northern Germany

Nodin

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Don't worry The awakening is coming
(..................)

This crap again?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Hoagy wrote: »

Personally I think that atheists are the only people who are fit to govern.

They don't have a great track record themselves either.

Been over this many, many times.

Religions tend to enjoy and support cult-based, authoritarian or totalitarian, polities, as have all of the "atheists" you're referring to.

"Atheist" government, on the other hand, specifically in the sense of a fully secular, fully liberal democractic system with an educated, liberal citizenry, is the most peaceful, co-operative form of large-scale societal organization the world has ever known.

The distinction is important and does deserve to be understood rather than ignored and used a silly debating tactic.

EunanMac

robindch wrote: »

Been over this many, many times.

Religions tend to enjoy and support cult-based, authoritarian or totalitarian, polities, as have all of the "atheists" you're referring to.

"Atheist" government, on the other hand, specifically in the sense of a fully secular, fully liberal democractic system with an educated, liberal citizenry, is the most peaceful, co-operative form of large-scale societal organization the world has ever known.

Atheist government does not = secular government

As state atheism clearly demonstrates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Religion, Science, ideologies, any of these can be used for good or bad, that's in the hands of the user.

True secularism, respects both atheism and theism equally. A point often buried and hidden by anti-theists.

magicbastarder

that sounds more like state anti-theism rather than state atheism. someone should reformulate the term.

Absolam

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

In the near future the awakening will occur.
An event when Atheism, education, science, logic and rationality reaches a critical mass of the humanoid population and these cults collapse rapidly into a morbid dying heap.

Will it chafe? It sounds like it will chafe. We should get lube.

EunanMac

magicbastarder wrote: »

that sounds more like state anti-theism rather than state atheism. someone should reformulate the term.

Anti-theism is often cloaked as mere atheism, to the detriment of genuinely secular atheists and theists.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Been over this many, many times.

Religions tend to enjoy and support cult-based, authoritarian or totalitarian, polities, as have all of the "atheists" you're referring to.

"Atheist" government, on the other hand, specifically in the sense of a fully secular, fully liberal democractic system with an educated, liberal citizenry, is the most peaceful, co-operative form of large-scale societal organization the world has ever known.

The distinction is important and does deserve to be understood rather than ignored and used a silly debating tactic.

I don't think the term atheist equates to secular, and most certainly does not imply liberal or democratic. The fact I'm an atheist says nothing about my politics, nor does it say anything about the politics of a government made up entirely of atheists.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Man is the root of all evil.

I think what you mean to say is man is the creator of the belief of what evil is or is not, we are certainly not the root of all evil.

You could technically call what a cat does to birds evil, a cat goes out into the world and hunts down birds more often then not to just simply play with their corpses and to enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

I'm sure if a bird could form the view they'd see cats as pretty damn evil, hunting their kind for sport.

The very idea of what constitutes what evil is is a human creation and its subject to change in our society...for example witches were evil however now we know they are not...as they don't exist, the same can be said for the devil.

Unre4L

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Don't worry The awakening is coming

In the near future the awakening will occur.
An event when Atheism, education, science, logic and rationality reaches a critical mass of the humanoid population and these cults collapse rapidly into a morbid dying heap.

Surely agnosticism and ignosticism are more rational than athemism and theism?
With an awakening like this, there should be second awakening too...

Unre4L

And the premise of this article is ignorant. Humans never had any problems killing each other, with or without religion. Religion is just a supplement.
When an Hamas militant in Gaza shouts God is Great before launching a missile, only imbeciles would think that he is doing this for religions sake. Politics, money, resources are rarely far away.

Im become depressed when people strive to find the most simple explanations for complex matters. Thats what really keeps this **** going on and on.

Brb, sending my tax money to liberate Middle East with bombs because they hate my freedom, and surely this is not part of the problem at all...

Unre4L

And the premise of this article is ignorant. Humans never had any problems killing each other, with or without religion. Religion is just a supplement.
When an Hamas militant in Gaza shouts God is Great before launching a missile, only imbeciles would think that he is doing this for religions sake. Politics, money, resources are rarely far away.

I become depressed when people strive to find the most simple explanations for complex matters. Thats what really keeps this **** going on and on.

Brb, sending my tax money to liberate Middle East with bombs because they hate my freedom, and surely this is not part of the problem at all...

ScumLord

I think religion has been an important and integral part of human evolution and the development of knowledge and larger social groups.

Religion evolved with us and has been pretty instrumental in some pretty major breakthroughs and events in human evolution. Some people think farming lead to civilization but others think that religion and being attached to religious sites had just as much to do with humans settling in one spot and coming up with new ways of feeding themselves. So it could be said religion lead to farming, civilization and everything that comes with civilization.

At it's most basic religion was about remembering the dead and honoring their memory, but it also allowed separated groups to have shared culture through their gods, making trade easier. It started the debate on questions like "where do we come from?", "why are we here?" and the realisation that everything in nature is connected in some sort of relationship.

Ancient gods tend to be kings and the way some civilisations could be vastly different in their technological abilities in ancient times it probably seemed logical that there was other people in charge making things work.

Even though our current batch of religions seem bad, compared to the religions that came before them their pretty good natured.

I think we've outgrown religion as a species but I appreciate what we got out of it and that it was instrumental in our evolution as a self aware animal.

Hotblack Desiato

ScumLord wrote: »

Some people think farming lead to civilization but others think that religion and being attached to religious sites had just as much to do with humans settling in one spot and coming up with new ways of feeding themselves. So it could be said religion lead to farming, civilization and everything that comes with civilization.

Could just as easily be said that the ability to live off one area led to the attachment to particular sites which later became religiously significant. It could well be that in some cases A led to B but in others B led to A. Australian aboriginal societies were nomadic but nonetheless attached to cultural and religious sites - still are.

Even though our current batch of religions seem bad, compared to the religions that came before them their pretty good natured.

One of our current batch of religions brought us the murderous conquest of Latin America, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. A few adherents of another seem hell-bent on creating their own modern equivalents.

I think we've outgrown religion as a species but I appreciate what we got out of it and that it was instrumental in our evolution as a self aware animal.

I wouldn't be at all convinced, it is like saying that I like chicken and I like eggs, but I've no idea which came first.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One of our current batch of religions brought us the murderous conquest of Latin America, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. A few adherents of another seem hell-bent on creating their own modern equivalents.

In fairness, no one expected the Spanish Inquisition.

RDM_83 again

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One of our current batch of religions brought us the murderous conquest of Latin America, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. A few adherents of another seem hell-bent on creating their own modern equivalents.
.

Lets actually examine these events, while I am not denying they were bloody events viewing history through a default "Those Evil Religious B@stards" lenses means events are given a far more significant negative impact than they merit when compared to ongoing events at the time.

1) The Spanish Inquestion - take a look at the actual numbers executed, a lot of people were processed but execution rates were extremely low, I imagine you think that 100,000's of people were killed in reality its likely less than 10,000 over its very very long history

2) Incidents in the Crusades like the sack of Jerusalem even at the time were considered terrible events, however a modern view is the massacre after the Franks captured the city was actually over emphasized by both islamic and christian sources for various reasons. Its pretty comparable to a nasty sack in western europe where both sides were Catholic. An example of an event that truly deserves to go down in history is the sack of Baghdad by the Religiously Tolerant Mongols where 80-200,000 were killed systematically.
Incidentally even people like the Templars who are portrayed simply utter religious fantatics were at least occasionally tolerant.

When I used to enter the Aqsa Mosque, which was occupied by the Templars, who were my friends, the Templars would evacuate the little adjoining mosque so that I might pray in it. One day I entered this mosque, repeated the first formula, “Allah is great,” and stood up in the act of praying, upon which one of the Franks rushed on me, got hold of me, and turned my face eastward saying, “This is the way thou shouldst pray!” [...] The Templars again came in to him and expelled him. They apologized to me, saying, “This is a stranger who has only recently arrived from the land of the Franks and he has never before seen anyone praying except eastward.”

Usamah ibn Munqidh

3) The conquest of Latin America was a brutal landgrab but can you argue the evil of Christianity in the case of the Aztec where they displaced a genuine death cult. The suffering of the indigenous population has to be seen in terms of economic concerns, places like Cerro Rico (the mountain that eats men) were nothing to do religion simply a hunger for wealth.

I'm not trying to minimize these events (even the Pope apologized for the 4th Crusade for example) and I am posting mainly of the top of my head and I am sure there is mistakes in this post, but they have to be seen in the context of the world at the time which was simply brutal.

Ps if you want an example of a truly brutal religious conflict the 30 years war is what your after

ScumLord

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Could just as easily be said that the ability to live off one area led to the attachment to particular sites which later became religiously significant.

You probably could if it wasn't for the evidence that archeologists are coming up with.

It is just a theory but it does seem like some religious sites predate farming because they were made by hunter gatherers not farmers.

Religious sites could have been meeting places where people traded food like grains and they accidentally ended up planting their first crops around these sites by dropping seeds and grains.

Michael OBrien

ScumLord wrote: »

Even though our current batch of religions seem bad, compared to the religions that came before them their pretty good natured.

Be careful not to fall into the old fallacy that the new religions are better than the old ones.
Scientology is a disgrace. Just read The Complex by John Duignan. Slavery, dehumanisation of children, total control over sexual relations, total science misinformation, insane leaders, absurd backstory, isolation from outsiders, Machiavellian politics and sheer greed that would make the catholic church proud.

Islam is not anyone's idea of a 'good' religion. Most of the Koran is their god boasting, threatening or being generally a dick.

I agree however that the gelling nature of religious practice did help start of civilisations, however we will never know if it was the ONLY way it could have occurred. It reminds me of when people try to justify religion by saying how wonderful the art it produced was. Its a narrow view of history.