• Are we too hard on Religion?
    629 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688206]Explain that to the children that were molested by those priests. The mere fact that it has done bad outweighs the entirety of it's good. I don't care about the history behind it. In the modern world, it should not have as much power as it does. It is simply a belief. It has no basis whatsoever, and has lead to atrocities in the name of it's belief. It. Should. Not. Have. Power. You should be allowed to believe in whatever bullshit you want in the comfort of your home, organized religion needs to go.[/QUOTE] Governments have lead to atrocities - Should governments be disbanded? I can't explain anything to the children molested by priests. It's an awful thing that I in no way condone. But you know what? My point still stands. The media reports the bad - it reports the priests who did molest children. It did not report the story about the priest that organized a charity for the homeless. It reports the Catholic church "shushing" up about the molestation - It doesn't report the priests who go into combat endangering their lives so they can give dying men their last rites from their "bullshit beliefs". Oh and not all religions molest children. There's more then just Catholicism.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34687848]They should not have to. A fictional belief should never have so much power in the modern world.[/QUOTE] Why are you against de-secularisation? Why should your beliefs hold precedence over someone elses?
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688206]Explain that to the children that were molested by those priests. The mere fact that it has done bad outweighs the entirety of it's good. I don't care about the history behind it. In the modern world, it should not have as much power as it does. It is simply a belief. It has no basis whatsoever, and has lead to atrocities in the name of it's belief. It. Should. Not. Have. Power. You should be allowed to believe in whatever bullshit you want in the comfort of your home, organized religion needs to go.[/QUOTE] Organized religion doesn't have official power as far as government goes. At least not in any first world countries. Churches and things like that are private organizations and are well within their rights.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688206]Explain that to the children that were molested by those priests. The mere fact that it has done bad outweighs the entirety of it's good. I don't care about the history behind it. In the modern world, it should not have as much power as it does. It is simply a belief. It has no basis whatsoever, and has lead to atrocities in the name of it's belief. It. Should. Not. Have. Power. You should be allowed to believe in whatever bullshit you want in the comfort of your home, organized religion needs to go.[/QUOTE] This isn't a good argument as you're equating a property of an event with a common thread or motivation. The Holy Crusade was immoral The Holy Crusade occurred under religious motivation Religious motivation is immoral It's a faulty syllogism. A = B B = C C = A There are many other lapses in reason in this way of thinking. For example, by the same logic you can talk about the German government during WWII and about how the government should disband due to past crimes. I find the argument to be a bit similar to the anti-violent video games argument, but I will admit it works better in this context. [QUOTE=Sottalytober;34688380]Governments have lead to atrocities - Should governments be disbanded?[/QUOTE] Of course. If force is immoral when priests rape children, then force should be equally immoral when an institution has a monopoly on the use of force.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34688392]Why are you against de-secularisation? Why should your beliefs hold precedence over someone elses?[/QUOTE] It's not a 'belief' I hold. It is the default to precede religion with science/reason/'The Alternative', we all hold this default when we are born, we are not in contact with religion until we grow up a bit. It is not to do with whether I am against 'de-secularization', but more to do with why I am with secularization. The reason why I am for secularization is simply because of the fact that the world does not need organized religion to progress, but needs science to do so, and religion holds it back. My thoughts are directed towards the human race's progress, not towards my hatred of religion. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34688521]Organized religion doesn't have official power as far as government goes. At least not in any first world countries. Churches and things like that are private organizations and are well within their rights.[/QUOTE] The majority of the world is not first world. Organized religions acting as private organizations use their power to influence not only events, but also the masses of people they have under their control. We are referring at this point in time to 'The Catholic Church, and The Vatican'. If you wish to refer to individual churches misnomers, you can look at how they dodge taxes with a sparkly white collar. My point still stands.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688648]It's not a 'belief' I hold. It is the default to precede religion with science/reason/'The Alternative', we all hold this default when we are born, we are not in contact with religion until we grow up a bit. It is not to do with whether I am against 'de-secularization', but more to do with why I am with secularization. The reason why I am for secularization is simply because of the fact that the world does not need organized religion to progress, but needs science to do so, and religion holds it back. My thoughts are directed towards the human race's progress, not towards my hatred of religion. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] The majority of the world is not first world. Organized religions acting as private organizations use their power to influence not only events, but also the masses of people they have under their control. We are referring at this point in time to 'The Catholic Church, and The Vatican'. If you wish to refer to individual churches misnomers, you can look at how they dodge taxes with a sparkly white collar. My point still stands.[/QUOTE] Religion does not hold back science - politics do. The politics of religion may stall science, but you need to separate the two. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;34688565]This isn't a good argument as you're equating a property of an event with another property of an event. The Holy Crusade was immoral The Holy Crusade occurred under religious motivation Religious motivation is immoral It's a faulty syllogism. A = B B = C C = A There are many other lapses in reason in this way of thinking. For example, by the same logic you can talk about the German government during WWII and about how the government should disband due to past crimes. Of course. If force is immoral when priests rape children, then force should be equally immoral when an institution has a monopoly on the use of force.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that all armies and nations should be disbanded?
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688648]It's not a 'belief' I hold. It is the default to precede religion with science/reason/'The Alternative', we all hold this default when we are born, we are not in contact with religion until we grow up a bit. It is not to do with whether I am against 'de-secularization', but more to do with why I am with secularization. The reason why I am for secularization is simply because of the fact that the world does not need organized religion to progress, but needs science to do so, and religion holds it back. My thoughts are directed towards the human race's progress, not towards my hatred of religion.[/QUOTE] But if it weren't for religion, where would we be? Think of the camps of uncivilized people living in seclusion from one another in the early ages. If it weren't for the Israelites uniting, then people would most likely living away from eachother, and progress goes flying out the window. Without that first unity, then would we be where we are today? Maybe, maybe not. But progress for humanity and society needed religion. Or at least a central belief.
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34688380][B]Governments have lead to atrocities - Should governments be [B]disbanded?[/B][/QUOTE] [B]Egypt, Syria, Libya.[/B] Yes. [quote=Sottalytober;34688380] I can't explain anything to the children molested by priests. It's an awful thing that I in no way condone. But you know what? My point still stands. The media reports the bad - it reports the priests who did molest children. It did not report the story about the priest that organized a charity for the homeless. It reports the Catholic church "shushing" up about the molestation - It doesn't report the priests who go into combat endangering their lives so they can give dying men their last rites from their "bullshit beliefs". [/QUOTE] If an organization commits heinous crimes, supporting themselves with charities (Which already exist outside of their control) as a form of cancellation of previous actions, still does not make them right. If you murder millions of people but donate money to homeless people, it does not mean your previous actions are forgivable. Those priests that run to the frontlines like 'heroes' have no need to endanger their lives. [quote=Sottalytober;34688380] Oh and not all religions molest children. There's more then just Catholicism.[/QUOTE] We are referring to Catholicism/Christianity at the moment because it is one of the more recognizable organizations of religion. If you want, we can move to other misnomers by different religions. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sottalytober;34688719]Religion does not hold back science - politics do. The politics of religion may stall science, but you need to separate the two. [/QUOTE] Religion and it's politics are intertwined.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34688565]This isn't a good argument as you're equating a property of an event with a common thread or motivation. The Holy Crusade was immoral The Holy Crusade occurred under religious motivation Religious motivation is immoral It's a faulty syllogism. A = B B = C C = A [/QUOTE] First off, the most of the Popes back then in the Dark Ages and Renaissance were corrupt men, only entering the priesthood to gain the power that the Pope had, gaining votes with bribery. The Crusades for Jerusalem being backed by these corrupt Popes weren't truly based for Religious purposes, but for land and riches. The whole "God says it's okay to kill Infidels" thing was only a way to get men to join up with the armies.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688788][B]Egypt, Syria, Libya.[/B] Yes. If an organization commits heinous crimes, supporting themselves with charities (Which already exist outside of their control) as a form of cancellation of previous actions, still does not make them right. If you murder millions of people but donate money to homeless people, it does not mean your previous actions are forgivable. Those priests that run to the frontlines like 'heroes' have no need to endanger their lives. We are referring to Catholicism/Christianity at the moment because it is one of the more recognizable organizations of religion. If you want, we can move to other misnomers by different religions. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Religion and it's politics are intertwined.[/QUOTE] Revolutions /=/ removal of governments. Revolution implies the dissociation of a particular family/ruling power. Removing the government implies anarchy. The organization themselves isn't committing the "heinous crimes". It's the members. No different then a member of the NRA shooting someone or a marine killing a civilian. A member reflects on its organization, but isn't the organization itself. Your analogy is flawed. Religion and it's politics are not intertwined. You only see them as so. A church can spread it's idealogy without politics.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688788][B]Egypt, Syria, Libya.[/B] Yes. If an organization commits heinous crimes, supporting themselves with charities (Which already exist outside of their control) as a form of cancellation of previous actions, still does not make them right. If you murder millions of people but donate money to homeless people, it does not mean your previous actions are forgivable. Those priests that run to the frontlines like 'heroes' have no need to endanger their lives. We are referring to Catholicism/Christianity at the moment because it is one of the more recognizable organizations of religion. If you want, we can move to other misnomers by different religions. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Religion and it's politics are intertwined.[/QUOTE] Religion and politics are intertiwned in certain countries. In America? No, certainly not. The whole reason that the government made a comprimise in the recent insurence contraceptives thing is politically motivated to secure votes. And nobody seems to bitch when the Hells Angels form a charity when they are mostly murderers and drug dealers.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34688743][B]But if it weren't for religion, where would we be? Think of the camps of uncivilized people living in seclusion from one another in the early ages. If it weren't for the Israelites uniting, then people would most likely living away from eachother, and progress goes flying out the window. [/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_%28united_monarchy%29[/url] 1020 BCE [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_empire#Median_Empire[/url] 2000 BCE [QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34688743]Without that first unity, then would we be where we are today? Maybe, maybe not. But progress for humanity and society needed religion. Or at least a central belief.[/QUOTE] My argument is that organized religion holds no ground in the modern world, and should have ceased to exists a [I]long[/I] time ago. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sottalytober;34688845]Revolutions /=/ removal of governments. Revolution implies the dissociation of a particular family/ruling power. [B]Removing the government implies anarchy.[/B][/QUOTE] You're taking it out of context. Removing a government that is committing crimes and replacing it with one that is not is what I was 'implying'. [QUOTE=Sottalytober]The organization themselves isn't committing the "heinous crimes". It's the members. No different then a member of the NRA shooting someone or a marine killing a civilian. A member reflects on its organization, but isn't the organization itself. Your analogy is flawed.[/QUOTE] When the organization's heads actively cover up the "heinous crimes" their members are involved in, it is tantamount to the organization committing them. [QUOTE=Sottalytober]Religion and it's politics are not intertwined. You only see them as so. A church can spread it's idealogy without politics.[/QUOTE] No it cannot.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688648]The reason why I am for secularization is simply because of the fact that the world does not need organized religion to progress, but needs science to do so, and religion holds it back. My thoughts are directed towards the human race's progress, not towards my hatred of religion.[/QUOTE] The only "legitimate" way for religion to use force is through government, as government has a monopoly of force in a given area. You're complaining about people using the gun of democracy/government as opposed to complaining about the existence of such gun. If your claim is more general than that and deals with non-religious people not supporting particular types of science while not using force, then you point isn't well reasoned as there are many impractical implications from the logic, particularly that acts that do not progress society ought not to exist.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34688861]Religion and politics are intertiwned in certain countries. [B]In America? No, certainly not.[/B] The whole reason that the government made a comprimise in the recent insurence contraceptives thing is politically motivated to secure votes. [/QUOTE] lol what You have to support Christianity/A religion to get elected, that's about as intertwined as it gets. Name a fucking athiest president. In fact, name a president that is not Christian or affiliated with it. Oh wait. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States"]You can't.[/URL] [quote=Wikipedia]No president thus far has been an Atheist, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion.[/quote] [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;34688966]The only "legitimate" way for religion to use force is through government, as government has a monopoly of force in a given area. You're complaining about people using the gun of democracy/government as opposed to complaining about the existence of such gun. If your claim is more general than that and deals with non-religious people not supporting particular types of science while not using force, then you point isn't well reasoned as there are many impractical implications from the logic, particularly that acts that do not progress society ought not to exist.[/QUOTE] Acts that retard society's progress should not exist (at least those on a large scale, not pissing with the toilet seat down), not those that do not progress it.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688890][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)[/URL] 1020 BCE [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_empire#Median_Empire[/URL] 2000 BCE[/QUOTE] Okay, so the Israelites weren't first. But both groups had their own religion, increasing the bond between the people of each civilization. Do we still need religion today? Yes. If we all believed that we were alone in this world, what could we turn to when loved ones die, the wall? Religion can add that comfort to people. Hell, a simple belief that we aren't alone in this place can help folks get through tough times. Perhaps the idea that we are alone in the universe is a comfort to somebody with no faith, but it isn't to me.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34689003]Okay, so the Israelites weren't first. But both groups had their own religion, increasing the bond between the people of each civilization. [/QUOTE] Yes, a LONNNNGGG time ago. It has no place in a [B]modern[/B] society. [QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34689003]Do we still need religion today? Yes.[/QUOTE] No we do not, not organized religion, at least. [QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34689003]If we all believed that we were alone in this world, what could we turn to when loved ones die, the wall? Religion can add that comfort to people. Hell, a simple belief that we aren't alone in this place can help folks get through tough times.[/QUOTE] Well maybe if life-extension technology (Stem-cells) was not opposed by the same people that give you comfort when a loved one dies, that wouldn't have to happen. People can get through tough times with a belief, I don't give a fuck about that, it just shouldn't be organized. [QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34689003]Perhaps the idea that we are alone in the universe is a comfort to somebody with no faith, but it isn't to me.[/QUOTE] Well on our current model of the universe, we can safely assume that there is other intelligent life like ours outside there. It is also really stupid to hold that belief when you probably will not get into space in your lifetime.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688981]lol what You have to support Christianity/A religion to get elected, that's about as intertwined as it gets. Name a fucking athiest president. In fact, name a president that is not Christian or affiliated with it. Oh wait. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States"]You can't.[/URL] [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Acts that retard society's progress should not exist (at least those on a large scale, not pissing with the toilet seat down), not those that do not progress it.[/QUOTE] So what? How many sihk, buddhist, muslim people have even run? The only reason muslims aren't getting elected because fuckers like Osama Bin Laden have given them all a bad name. But, all of the overtly, no tolerance religious creeps out there have something to do with it, I'm sure, so you get a point there, but whatever. I'd vote for an atheist if they weren't a dickhead about everything.
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34688719]So you're saying that all armies and nations should be disbanded?[/QUOTE] No, disband would imply a voluntary association. You wouldn't say that the Holocaust victims disbanded from the camp when there was an ample chance. You could technically, but it would make more sense if the language would imply escape, or some element of getting away from violence/danger. I don't quite see it as the end to a voluntary association, but rather the dissociation of a non-voluntary coercive relationship.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34689049] Well maybe if life-extension technology (Stem-cells) was not opposed by the same people that give you comfort when a loved one dies, that wouldn't have to happen. People can get through tough times with a belief, I don't give a fuck about that, it just shouldn't be organized. Well on our current model of the universe, we can safely assume that there is other intelligent life like ours outside there. It is also really stupid to hold that belief when you probably will not get into space in your lifetime.[/QUOTE] Point one: accidental deaths. IE car accidents, nasty falls, etc. Modern medical tech could save them, but a sharp blow to the head by somebody inadvertantly knocking a brick off a building ain't that survivable. Point two: Let me clarify. Higher beings in the universe. Chances are, the intelligent life forms we seek could have their own religious beliefs too. Does that make them wrong? Perhaps they have their own god or gods or perhaps they even worship the same God, but a different name (a long shot, but can you prove me wrong? Can I prove you wrong?)
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34689063][B]So what?[/B] How many sihk, buddhist, muslim people have even run? The only reason muslims aren't getting elected because fuckers like Osama Bin Laden have given them all a bad name. But, all of the overtly, no tolerance religious creeps out there have something to do with it, I'm sure, so you get a point there, but whatever. [B]I'd vote for an atheist if they weren't a dickhead about everything.[/B][/QUOTE] You lose. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The_J_Hat;34689137]Point one: accidental deaths. IE car accidents, nasty falls, etc. Modern medical tech could save them, but a sharp blow to the head by somebody inadvertantly knocking a brick off a building ain't that survivable. Point two: Let me clarify. Higher beings in the universe. Chances are, the intelligent life forms we seek could have their own religious beliefs too. Does that make them wrong? Perhaps they have their own god or gods or perhaps they even worship the same God, but a different name (a long shot, but can you prove me wrong? Can I prove you wrong?)[/QUOTE] Straws everywhere. [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/sadstraw.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688981]Acts that retard society's progress should not exist (at least those on a large scale, not pissing with the toilet seat down), not those that do not progress it.[/QUOTE] It doesn't make much sense to just make statements without reason and evidence, because not only does it invalidate it as an argument, but it doesn't further the discussion. Anyone who is going to respond is in the position of guessing what someone would use for reason and evidence with that argument. You may not being doing it purposely, but it really feels like you're pushing a philosophy like a religion would do, by making a bunch of statements, and then not explaining the reasoning behind the statements.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688981]lol what You have to support Christianity/A religion to get elected, that's about as intertwined as it gets. Name a fucking athiest president. In fact, name a president that is not Christian or affiliated with it. Oh wait. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States"]You can't.[/URL] [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Acts that retard society's progress should not exist (at least those on a large scale, not pissing with the toilet seat down), not those that do not progress it.[/QUOTE] [quote]The irreligious There are some presidents for which there is little evidence as to the importance of religion in their lives. For example, almost no evidence exists for Monroe's personal religious beliefs, though this may be the result of the destruction of most of his personal correspondence, in which religious sentiments may have been recorded. Franklin Steiner lists four presidents as "not affiliated" and six others as "religious views doubtful":[10] James Madison James Monroe Martin Van Buren William Henry Harrison John Tyler Zachary Taylor Andrew Johnson Ulysses S. Grant Rutherford B. Hayes Chester Arthur As with claims of deism, these identifications are not without controversy. Van Buren, for example, can be identified as a regular churchgoer, despite a lack of evidence that he was ever a formal member.[10][/quote] You keep saying that religion and politics are intertwined, but I've never seen a modern election where the winner toted being religious as a campaign strategy. [QUOTE=Pepin;34689119]No, disband would imply a voluntary association. You wouldn't say that the Holocaust victims disbanded from the camp when there was an ample chance. You could technically, but it would make more sense if the language would imply escape, or some element of getting away from violence/danger. I don't quite see it as the end to a voluntary association, but rather the dissociation of a non-voluntary coercive relationship.[/QUOTE] I have a cluster migraine right now and can't really focus on what you're trying to say - so I'm gonna go ahead and concede.
[QUOTE=Pepin;34689305]It doesn't make much sense to just make statements without reason and evidence, because not only does it invalidate it as an argument, but it doesn't further the discussion. Anyone who is going to respond is in the position of guessing what someone would use for reason and evidence with that argument. You may not being doing it purposely, but it really feels like you're pushing a philosophy like a religion would do, by making a bunch of statements, and then not explaining the reasoning behind the statements.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion[/url] [release][QUOTE]A major criticism of many religions is that they require beliefs that are [B]irrational, unscientific, or unreasonable.[/B] Stated differently, religious beliefs and traditions [B]lack scientific or rational foundations.[/B] There are several aspects to this criticism, including: Religions often posit facts that are contradicted by scientific evidence (e.g. evolution, origin of the universe, miracles); for example, the claim that prayer has a beneficial effect on others has been tested and disproved.[8] Religions often require behaviors that are not sensible (such as the Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[9] Religions and their holy books contain rules and laws designed to govern behavior and conduct, some of which—within a single religion—are contradictory or impossible to follow.[citation needed] Religions and their holy books often contain conflicting facts or histories (for example, discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[10][11][12] Religions have claimed the truth of stories which contain elements indistinguishable from fairy tales or superstitions (such as astrology or Santa Claus).[citation needed] Religions cannot adapt to a changing world, and their teachings are outdated in comparison with modern Western morals. For instance, the rules on certain diets—such as the Torah's prohibition of eating pork or shellfish—may have made sense some thousands of years ago, when certain animals were often infested with parasites. However, such a prohibition in modern times may be illogical, as the quality and safety of food have improved.[citation needed] Religions have promoted facts and histories that are contradicted by science. These often form the basis of significant controversies, such as the trial of Galileo for his purported heresy that the earth moves around the sun. The origin of the earth or universe is often described by holy books in the form of creation myths, which are contradicted by scientific theories of cosmology. The origin of the human species, as presented by many Christian sects, is contradicted by the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. In other cases, religions assert the factual existence of phenomena such as miracles and angels, which are not necessarily contradicted by science, but find little or no scientific support. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Religious adherents, such as the notable Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, counter these arguments by suggesting that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in [B]concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by science.[/B] However, some religious beliefs have been disproven by science, for instance Young Earth creationism.[13] Scientist Stephen Jay Gould agreed with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[14] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[8] Dawkins argues that any time a religious person claims that a certain event (e.g. the Love Parade stampede)[15] is a punishment by God or that they have been helped or rewarded by God for their actions ("thank god") the NOMA thesis is violated. For NOMA to hold, Dawkins argues the supernatural being in question must not have any effect on people's physical lives, and that only claims regarding the afterlife are allowed.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Child abuse See also: Indoctrination, Brainwashing, Religion and children, and Child marriage Critics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term "child abuse" to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children.[60][61] They claim that children are especially vulnerable to mental harms related to religion, including: Terrorized by threats of punishment, such as eternal damnation in a fiery hell Extreme guilt about normal, healthy sexual functions Trained to disrespect science and reason Indoctrinated into a particular religious faith, thus depriving the child of the opportunity to make their own free inquiry later, when they are mature [B]Dawkins is angered by the term "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child". He asks how a young child can possibly be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child."[60][/B] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Child brides Islam[62] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 10 years of age. The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10 year old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[63] a 13 year old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[64][65] and a 12 year old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[62][66] Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[67] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[68] The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several fundamentalist branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[69][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Critics such as Hitchens assert that many religions view some types of natural sexual activity (such as homosexuality or masturbation) as evil or immoral, and that this view can sometimes lead to neuroses or other ill effects.[59] Hitchens also argues that virginity is unhealthy, and can lead to emotional problems.[/QUOTE] ______________________________________________________________________________________ [QUOTE][B]Suppression of scientific progress[/B] John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples of scientific suppression by the Roman Catholic Church include the trial of Galileo for arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the execution of scientist and philosopher Giordano Bruno. In more recent time, many debates have arisen that follow a pattern of faith versus reason, in particular the rise of fundamentalist and bible literalist opposition to science and liberal democracy. Examples include the creation-evolution controversy, and controversies over the use of birth control, the separation of church and state, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[121][122][123][124][125] During the 19th century what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[126] The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today.[127][128][129] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[130] and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion. Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.[130][131] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[132] and the Scopes trial,[133] and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[134][135][136] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[137] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[138] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Suppression of art and literature Some religions have destroyed important artistic works and cultural or religious artifacts. The Taliban destroyed the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001 in the name of Islam. Catholic priest Diego de Landa almost single handedly destroyed all knowledge of the Mayan hieroglyphs, with the desire to wipe out the Mayan religion. During the English civil war, Parliamentarian soldiers destroyed two of the Eleanor Crosses, one at Cheapside in London and another in Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire, as they were viewed to be relics of the Catholic faith to which, as Puritans, they were opposed. In 1989, Muslim religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for the publication of The Satanic Verses.[139] In 2005, many Muslims protested against the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammad. Muslims in Bangladesh issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the death of poet and author Taslima Nasrin because of the women's rights issues raised in her books, particularly her novel Lajja.[140][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Morality See also: Human sacrifice, Honor killing, Morality and religion, and Religious intolerance “ A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ” — Albert Einstein[141] Nobel Peace laureate, Muslim, and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi has criticized dogmatic Islam as morally deficient, arguing that it elevates to moral status many ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era.[142][verification needed] An example of this would be the idea that women and men must be kept separate, or that women who do not cover themselves up modestly have tendencies for immorality, or are in some way responsible for sexual assault.[143][144] Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.[24] Religious institutions typically declare they have special knowledge of absolute morality and invoke this in order to hinder debates on many issues such as stem cell research, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.[124][145][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Treatment of homosexuals “ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ” — Leviticus 20:13|KJV Many major religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral. Singer Elton John said organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people... Organized religion does not seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."[146] In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[147] Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and in many of these countries carries the death penalty. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry. Human rights organisations estimate that hundreds of people have been executed for homosexuality by Iranian authorities since the 1979 revolution.[148] However, many liberal religious groups, and particularly most New Age religions, are accepting of homosexuals and do not regard their behavior as sinful, in particular: Progressive Judaism, Neopaganism, Wicca, Raëlism, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada,[149] the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, Moravian Church,[149] Haitian Voodoo, Unitarian Universalism, and the Metropolitan Community Church, which was established almost specifically for this purpose.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]RacismTreatment of women In some Muslim countries, women wear hijabs or niqabs that conceal almost all of their bodies. See also: Gender and religion and Misogyny This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010) Critics[who?] say that religions often treat women in a discriminatory fashion, given them status inferior to men, depriving them of opportunities, endorsing excessive punishments, and using torture and executions as a manner of subjugating them. An example of such criticism is the treatment of women in modern Islam, such as the required wearing of a burqa in some sects, or denying women permission to drive cars. Critics[who?] also claim that Islam authorizes the punishment of female rape victims, citing a Saudi Arabian case where a rape victim was sentenced to receive 90 lashes because she was in a car with a man that was not her relative.[158] Critics including Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and usually harmful female genital modification and mutilation, when the purposes range from depriving them of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring they are still a virgin to their husbands, or falsely giving the appearance that they are still a virgin.[85][159] [edit] Witch hunts Another example is the use of witch trials by the Christian churches from 1480 through 1800. These trials, often resulting in torture or death of the alleged witch, were based on the Old Testament in the Exodus 22:18, which prescribes "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Critics[who?] say that these trials were unfair, and that witchcraft was often not in evidence, and that the trials were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives,[160] or activists.[161] [edit] Cruelty to animals Shechita Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[162] in part as an antisemetic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[163] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[162] Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice.[164] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in scripture.[162] In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that "these laws are binding on Jews today."[165] More recently, kosher slaughter has attracted criticism from some groups concerned with animal welfare, who contend that the absence of any form of anesthesia or stunning prior to the severance of the animal's jugular vein causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Calls for the abolition of kosher slaughter have been made in 2008 by Germany's federal chamber of veterinarians,[166] and in 2011 by the Party for Animals in the Dutch parliament.[167] In both incidents, Jewish groups responded that the criticisms were attacks against their religion.[166][167] Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[165] Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein shows that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.[168] Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity movement, Mormon leaders, and some Post-Medieval Theologians[who?] have made claims that white people are closer to God than other races. Religious terrorist organizations such as the forenamed Ku Klux Klan, Kach and Kahane Chai and others also hold ostensibly racist views.[150][151] The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[152] Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race.[153] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[154] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships. [/QUOTE][/release] [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/strawmanhasnoarg.png[/IMG] [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sottalytober;34689372]You keep saying that religion and politics are intertwined, but I've never seen a modern election where the winner toted being religious as a campaign strategy. [quote] The irreligious There are some presidents for which there is little evidence as to the importance of religion in their lives. For example, almost no evidence exists for Monroe's personal religious beliefs, though this may be the result of the destruction of most of his personal correspondence, in which religious sentiments may have been recorded. Franklin Steiner lists four presidents as "not affiliated" and six others as "religious views doubtful":[10] James Madison James Monroe Martin Van Buren William Henry Harrison John Tyler Zachary Taylor Andrew Johnson Ulysses S. Grant Rutherford B. Hayes Chester Arthur As with claims of deism, these identifications are not without controversy. Van Buren, for example, can be identified as a regular churchgoer, despite a lack of evidence that he was ever a formal member.[10] [/quote] [/QUOTE] [quote]Personal beliefs The inner beliefs of the presidents are much more difficult to establish than church membership. While some presidents have been relatively voluble about religion, many have been reticent to the point of complete obscurity. Researchers have tried to draw conclusions from patterns of churchgoing or religious references in political speeches. When explicit statements are absent, it is difficult to assess whether the presidents in question were irreligious, were unorthodox in their beliefs, or simply believed that religion was not a matter for public revelation.[/quote] This shows they did not want to be a part of the religion, but did so for the sake of staying in power.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34689583][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion[/url] [release] ______________________________________________________________________________________ [/release] [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/strawmanhasnoarg.png[/IMG] [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] This shows they did not want to be a part of the religion, but did so for the sake of staying in power.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say staying in power - more like keeping the masses happy in a time where religion was very deep in the community.
Absolutely. We take people of diffrent beliefs for face value and don't even try to understand them.
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34689647]I wouldn't say staying in power - more like keeping the masses happy in a time where religion was very deep in the community.[/QUOTE] Or both. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=7H3_H4CK3R;34689695]Absolutely. [B]We take people of diffrent beliefs for face value and don't even try to understand them.[/B][/QUOTE] If you're reading a multicultural private school's brochure, yes.
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34689372]You keep saying that religion and politics are intertwined, but I've never seen a modern election where the winner toted being religious as a campaign strategy. [/QUOTE] You must not know about the US.
the most important thing is to be respectful of one's own beliefs - any side of the argument can be given the blame of being overly controlling and this is not what people need people just need to be accepting of others, simple, regardless of who they are or what they think is truth if you push down on religion then you are hindering free-thinking, no matter how you paint it
Honestly, even if religion was never to exist for some reason, the world wouldn't be any better off when you think about it. Religion is usually just used as a front to an entirely different motive like greed or lust anyways. If people didn't have religion it would just be something else.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34688648]It's not a 'belief' I hold. It is the default to precede religion with science/reason/'The Alternative', we all hold this default when we are born, we are not in contact with religion until we grow up a bit. It is not to do with whether I am against 'de-secularization', but more to do with why I am with secularization. [/QUOTE] Hey buddy, that's not secularization. Secularization implies freedom to worship as you please.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.