Respect and Religion

[atiguhya padma]

Amuse,

I sympathise with your position. It seems that you maybe sympathise with mine. I often wonder why I feel driven to criticise religion. And when I reflect upon this, I find that my thoughts take me into further criticism. Only recently, for instance, I was thinking about how people can still have faith despite the world's great atrocities like the gulag and the holocaust, and how people can feel that it was OK for God to abstain from action in these events. I mean for me, the gulag and the holocaust are examples of man's inhumanity to man. But if you believe in God, you have to somehow justify his inactivity, don't you? On Jan 20th 1942, a meeting of around 16 or so Nazis determined the fate of around 6 million Jews. Now imagine, in a war situation like WWII, how easy it would be to eradicate 16 people and make it look like it was either accidental, natural or a result of the conflict. So it would seem that God did not want these 16 people to die. Without them, it is probable that the Final Solution would not have occurred. It takes a great deal of planning and organisation to kill 6 million people. Now, 6 million divided by 16 = 375,000. That, it would appear, is the value God has placed on the lives of these 16 Nazis. They are equivalent to the lives of 375,000 Jews. Is this not an intolerable position that God is in? He allows 6 million Jews to die, and yet doesn't orchestrate the death of 16 Nazis? And, let us suppose that God sent a messenger to assess the state of affairs at the Nuremberg trials. Would he have said, well done guys, these Nazis deserve this, it is only justice? or would he have said, did I not give a commandment unto you Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Of course, the argument I am familiar with from Christians, is that God does not wish to tamper with reality, to interfere with freewill. Yet those same Christians would have me believe that when Julie, or John got that job they were going for last week, it was thanks to prayer, and the interference of God in the world. God is supposed to do all kinds of works that would appear to interfere with freewill and reality. Yet, despite the great amount of prayer that must have occurred during World War II, his love seems pretty much absent. Am I really to believe that God protected 16 Nazis that devised the deaths of 6 million Jews, because he did not wish to interfere with freewill? Or am I to believe there is no God, just a propensity within mankind to perpetrate atrocities and unimaginably cruel acts?

You see what happens when I take the idea of God seriously?

[atiguhya padma]

Papayahed said:

<The only reason Athiests don't have such protection or wield such power is because your not a group.>

Well atheists certainly are a group. There is even a world atheists convention held annually: last year in Vijayawada, India. In the UK, there is the National Secular Society and also the British Humanist Association, both of which have a membership that actively professes atheism. In the US there is the American Atheists.

I take your point about the nativity play in the US, but I doubt whether this is of the same degree of animosity as occurs in the UK with religious lobby groups. In fact, in the UK, humanists and atheists tend to demonstrate about loss of rights and the psychological effects of religion upon the populace, more than anything else. And those kinds of demonstrations tend to be very low-key, unlike the rabid rantings of people like Stephen Green and the Christian Voice organisation.

[amuse]

well, AP. the position i take is that although bodies die, we do not. and god has allowed us to commit atrocities on each other until one day, one lifetime we finally wake up and face ourselves and begin to learn to love. of course, for some of us this has taken and will take aeons. i know - please excuse this - that sounds simplistic. as well, i imagine, heretic - ah well.

[crisaor]

This all depends on what you mean by tolerance. I do not preach persecution. I am intolerant of religious belief, just as I would be intolerant of any ideology that I consider harmful to the world in general. I cannot stand by, just being a spectator and watch people degenerate into delusional states. This is essentially what I feel happens when people become religious.

For starters, it's pretty obvious that I disagree with all this, specially the last statement. You provide no justification for this, you simply state your opinion, which brings me to my point. What's the difference between you, a person who can't (or won't) tell the difference (and that division always exists) between two religious people, no matter if their zeal is different, if they belong to different religions, if they practice what they preach/believe, etc.; and a zealot preacher, as corrupt, unbalanced, and as delusional as you perceive all of us who believe in God in some way are?
You claim that religion is bad for humanity. The preacher on TV says atheists are bad for humanity. I fail to see where does your position constitute a positive/constructive attitude.

[papayahed]

I think your wanting somebody to say "Your right AP, atheists are way better then Christians, they behave better and they're way more mentally stable"

In some cases you may be right, but I think your comparing apples to oranges. Your comparing moderate athiests to right wing religiousos. Is there a right wing athiest? I don't think there can be a belief in something is greater than a belief against something.

[amuse]

i think everyone just likes to exercise their mental muscles! - yes that was rather unsolicited...

[subterranean]

I don't know, AP mentioned about the "damages" religious followers caused to this world. I agree with that, but we also need to look the positive benefits which were done by religious practitioner to this world as well. That way we can have a merely fair judgements. For example, in my country, specifically in the island of Sumatra (North Sumatra), Christianism ended the practice of burning people as sacrifice to gods, which was done as main traditional practice by the people for hundreds (or even thousands) of years. You may say, eventually this practice would end, with or without missionary practice. True, but we have to admit that the teaching accelerated the ending of that barbaric act.

[amuse]

nice

[Scheherazade]

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion?
Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...

Christianism ended the practice of burning people as sacrifice to gods

And Sub... Your post in itself is contradicting... You say those sacrifices were made for Gods... which means they were still done in the name of religion. Not one of the institutionalised monotheistic religions of today maybe but still a religion

[Sitaram]

A good point Scherazade makes. And Christianity itself centers around the notion that a Divine Father offers his onlybegotten Divine Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. There is a human sacrifice and torture involved. And the communion or Eucharist is the symbolic eating of flesh and drinking of blood. The theology of forgiveness and salvation which flows from all of this is very attractive and comforting. But still, when you think about how these things are just accepted as normal. You know some Christians were laughing at Hindus for worshiping the elephant form Ganesh. So I said to them, well, you worship a Lamb. They said, "What do you mean." I said "Well, you call Jesus the Lamb of God" They said, "Oh, well, thats DIFFERENT! That is only poetic license and symbolism"... And yet... the original name of Ganesh is "Ganapati" which may be translated as "Lord of Hosts" and it is Hannah in Samuel who first calls God "Lord of Hosts."

[subterranean]

Encarta gives 4 definitions of religion:

1. religion beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. religion particular system: a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.

Perhaps there are other definitions available. I got your point Scher, wasn't that barbaric people act that way based on a certain belief that human sacrifice is neccesary? Maybe. But it needs further study whether what the ancient people from North Sumatra truly based their act on certain belief/religion. But personally, when someone mention the word "religion", what comes to my mind is a set of established spiritual system. Since the point of discussion in this thread is very much related with big modren religions of the world, thus I used that example.
When I was in college, I remember these terms "big religions" and "small religions".
Big religions: established religions, acknowledged pollitically and socially and protected by law (well somekind of like that, I kinda forgot). For example Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.
Small religions: grassroots belief with small number of local followers, mostly mixed with cultural values and myths.

A more appropriate example perhaps the fact that in my country, the fundament of modern education (read/write, research and more) was established by Christians/Catholics missionaries acts as well as Muslims'. Modern schools firstly built by their contributions. Some of the greatest schools in my country which are still exist till now, was the silent proof of those contributions. Same thing with sanitation/healt system. More, until today there are many religious leaders involved in the improvement of local society economic development by teaching them farming, sewing, making home products to sell, etc. They don't take benefit in any form, they just help.
In a way perhaps those contributions were also means to attract people to convert, but that is another issue.

I am aware of the global "damages" issues you stated which were caused by religions Scher, but I'm just stating what I see in my everyday life. The small improvement made by religious people. I don't belong to particular religion, but when I see/hear stories about those people, I feel glad and thank nature for them. I'm not defending anyone here, but I can't ignore those facts and I have to see from both sides.

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion?
Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...


And Sub... Your post in itself is contradicting... You say those sacrifices were made for Gods... which means they were still done in the name of religion. Not one of the institutionalised monotheistic religions of today maybe but still a religion

[crisaor]

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion? Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...

You need not stick to religion to find this stuff. Robespierre, for instance, a proud atheist, took pride in burning down churches and decapitating people. And that's just the tip of the other iceberg. Your quarrel is with the institutions, with the powers, but instead, you take it down on the believers, in which case, the ones I know in this forum, are very tolerable and open minded. I find it funny you keep mixing the religious hierarchies and their decisions/point of views and the different religious messages, which some of us follow to some extent. For example, I consider myself a christian, but I don't go to church, I don't follow the pope's advise (nor my local Church), and I disagree with 90% of what they say, but that doesn't stop me from trying to do the good stuff that you might find in the Bible, or in the Tora, or in the Quran, or in Buddha's teachings, and so on.

[Scheherazade]

Crisaor,

You have a point that one does need to look at religions to find evil in this world. I am not saying that religious people do not do any good. We all are capable of good and bad. As humanbeings we will all err. What worries me is the fact that when acts are hidden under the blanket of religion, they become acceptable no matter how intolerable they are. People will follow almost anything and everything when it is done in the name of religion. And unfortunately, there is so much erring in the name of religion when people take religion in their own hands and claim to know the word of God better than God himself.

[subterranean]

Most of my friends are Muslims and none of them approve what the fundamentalist Muslims did, with their act of terrors, bombing, etc., eventhough those people claim their act as the act as Jihad and to defend Allah and Islam. My friends think that those acts are ridiculous and must be stop.

Some years ago there were Church bombings on Christmas eve in my country. More than a hundred churches bombed at almost exactly the same time. The actors (which are Muslims) claimed to do that as an act of defending their beliefs towards the Christians. But their act was condenmed, specialy by other Muslims believers. And no..It was not an unacceptable act .

What worries me is the fact that when acts are hidden under the blanket of religion, they become acceptable no matter how intolerable they are. People will follow almost anything and everything when it is done in the name of religion. And unfortunately, there is so much erring in the name of religion when people take religion in their own hands and claim to know the word of God better than God himself.

[crisaor]

What worries me is the fact that when acts are hidden under the blanket of religion, they become acceptable no matter how intolerable they are. People will follow almost anything and everything when it is done in the name of religion. And unfortunately, there is so much erring in the name of religion when people take religion in their own hands and claim to know the word of God better than God himself.

We agree on this, Scher. But the solution to this is to educate those who are in this situation, not to eliminate religion, because that won't stop the problem. Aside from losing its benefits, people will shift to other matters to follow blindly ("leadership", patriotism, etc.). The problem is not religion, but the people itself, and the order of things in which they live in.