To atheists/agnostics, I've a question.

Post Reply New Topic

This has been on my mind for a while, and I could use some feedback on it. Are you against the idea of all forms of religions? For example, what many early native Americans would practice Shaminism/Henetheism to Buddishm/Shinto in India and Japan. Or are you mostly against the Abrahamic religions? Judaism/Islam/Christianity

This

It is not a matter of "being against" any religion. It is simply not believing in these religions and not wanting these beliefs imposed on nonbelievers as "facts" or reality. And it is about keeping religious influence out of government business as per 1st Amendment. And for said religions to stop denying science while at the same time benifitting from all that science has done, such as technology, medicine and understanding how our universe functions.

Maybe the problem is that the Abrahamic religions take the attitude that disagreeing with you or not sharing your beliefs is being "against" you.

Or attacking you.

I mainly agree with Khaoz. I would add that I am a democrat, but democracy is meaningless without a thirst for knowledge, the ability to logically assess data, and the disposition to regard reality with intellectual honesty. Many religions encourage a mindset that undermines those ends, and to the extent that they do, I am against those religions. At the same time, I would never support anyone who sought to ban religion outright. I would rather support the promotion of skepticism and sound epistemological methods through media, education and debate.

Last edited by Stannis on 13 May 2014, 10:20 pm, edited 9 times in total.

I'm not opposed to the belief in a divine, but the institution of religion is too easily corrupted and manipulated and succumbs to patterns of institutional evil too easily. Much of religious belief revolves around viewing "the other" as less than and by creating divisions among people for the sole purpose of exploiting the confusion and hatred that naturally evolves from that separation.

Take, for example, the catholic prohibition on bodily function. Many Catholics are taught that deification is a sin against god. In order to rectify this sin, they must pay money to the church. So, in essence, the church has picked a natural human condition and defined it as evil, and threatened it's own members with expulsion from their hypothetical heaven.... unless they pay a fine and re-pledge loyalty to the church.

When "they" (organized religions) define their competitors as evil, it routinely results in prejudice, inequality, and in the extreme: genocide.

The individuals that compose organized religion are not inherently evil, but they provide power to extremists by normalizing and providing an outlet for their hatred. So, take for example: Homosexuality. Why is homosexuality evil? Well, it's convenient. There aren't many homosexuals and so once can make themselves feel superior without having to worry about rebuke. The average person doesn't care all that much about gay marriage. But the extremists may interpret the prohibition of homosexuality as license to attack or even kill suspected homosexuals. But the ideology doubles down, because the extremists, in this case, are not necessarily evil under the organized religion's ideology, merely overzealous. The average member would not kill a homosexual, but they would be sympathetic to those who do in the name of shared belief. Association with extremists does nothing to dissuade that average member from their heartfelt belief.

This is currently what is going on in Uganda. The Ugandan minister of ethics recently made comments about the recent criminalization of homosexuality and the problem of child rape. Christian teachings very loudly, vehemently oppose homosexuality. A missionary might comment on the evil of homosexuals every day. Rape, however, is impolite to talk about. When western church officials left and returned to Europe the Ugandan ethos was left with a skewed view of what it means to be Cristian because they know what, and with what passion they were taught, and do not know what was not mentioned. Thus Uganda made homosexuality a crime bearing the sentence of life in prison, in line with the passion with which that sin was proselytized. The rationale is that sodomy is necessarily immoral rape. However, within Uganda's population of young girls around 40% have been sexually assaulted or raped. On this subject the Ugandan minister of ethics says "...ahhh, yes. But this is the right kind of rape! [That is the difference. They are privileged to bear children as god intended.] " This is not to say that Christians are in favor of raping young girls, but the way in which they educated their acolytes directly led to a system of institutional injustice, by prioritizing the marginal issue of homosexuals existing while ignoring the real problems faced by their constituents.

There is a simply reason for this. Opposing actual rapists would take actual work. Opposing homosexuals is easy because they have little collective will or concentration of power with which to resist marginalization.

These are just a couple of examples. While the individuals who compose institutional faiths are neither inherently good or bad, that says nothing about the leaders and vocal political factions who utilize the average member's non-dissent to employ their own goals using the faith as a medium for self advancement and acts of evil.

I'm not sure whether or not native americans ever engaged in shamanism. I doubt they would have called it shamanism even if they did something identical to it.

Firstly atheism is a non belief in the supernatural, it does not denote a persons opposition to religion. Some of us are anti-theistic, and anti-super naturalistic. For me, personally I am opposed to any form of supernatural belief which criticizes or attempts to change behaviors of non believers based solely on supernatural reasons. I am also opposed to super-naturalists who prey on the vulnerable, this includes but is not restricted to clairvoyants, ghost whisperers, homeopaths and other nonsense healing modalities.

Also I am virulently opposed to the falsification of knowledge by religious devotee's and I see lying to children about science as a form of abuse.

Taoism and Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, are my two religious choices. Neither religion involves a concept of God. God to me is like Superman or Santa Claus, just a fairy tale people invent to explain a natural force in relatable terms. I don't know what "God" is, but I KNOW it is not anything like a human being. We're just bald monkeys with big brains and language. It is very arrogant to believe the Master of the Universe is anything like us. We are way too small and limited.

Last edited by em_tsuj on 13 May 2014, 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm an atheist Zen Buddhist. I do not believe any gods exist as exemplified by the Abrahamic religions. Overwhelming evidence shows us that life evolved on the planet over many millions of years and that humans are just another one of the animals that have evolved. This is at odds with the teachings of Abrahamic religions regarding creation and Adam and Eve, which I regard as pure mythology. Similarly neurology shows us that there is no such thing as a soul.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism is not against science; quite the reverse, Buddhism welcomes the discoveries made by science. Buddhism is a way of living life in a compassionate manner towards others and a way of understanding oneself and one's place in the world.

I am mainly against every kind of religion, misused for excusing bad behavior. Atheism does not make me AGAINST any form of religion, it simply means, that I dont believe in it myself. That does not mean, I were not able to recognize and appreciate good things that good religious people do. But it simply makes me immune against people, excusing their misbehavior with religion. I have no prob with my kids one day visiting the scouts as I did (when I was already atheistic). I see nothing bad about them being taught to help other people, care for each other, helping in charity street markets or donations for good projects. But if some weirdo-hardliner tries to tell them to hate others (out of homosexuality, divorces, ...) out of religious reasons, they will have a prob with me.

Same goes for any other religion. There are nice people, that are Hindus, and there are sh***y Hindu people using their religion for excusing their behavior. Same goes for muslims... Beside some really weirdo-religions, bad behavior hardly depends on the religion, but simply on the individual.

I'm an atheist because I lack a belief that God or Gods exist. It's not something I think about much. Growing up in England, my family wasn't religious, though I think they were mildly theist, in that Church of England vague sense there's something there but can't really define it kind of way. I was too, as a kid. Certainly we didn't really talk about it. The junior school I went to - ages 5-11 - sang hymns every morning, as the law required - perhas still does - an 'act of daily collective worship'. The words were fairly meaningless to me. Some good tunes, mind. Sometime around about the ae of 12, I realised I no longer had that vague sense of something else that I'd previously thought of as my belief in the CofE God. I went on with my life as I already was, not all that fussed.

I'm not against religion in itself. I just lack a belief of that sort, though some of what I enjoy thinking about/find fascinating in the world may in some people become religious. And certainly people can have beliefs that follow a structure of religion whilst at the same time being thoroughly atheist. I find beliefs of all kinds interesting.

What I am in favour of is secularism and liberalism. The attempt to find ways to live and coexist without endless conflict breaking out.

Most vocal atheists are of course anti religion so it might seem as if we're all AGAINST. Not necessarily, though. It's not a belief system (well, to some it is ) and some can appreciate religion to a more or lesser extent. I personally wouldn't say that I'm necessarily anti-religion, I think that if I'd solely attack religion I'm having the wrong discussion and am barking up the wrong tree because it isn't religion per se that can be problematic, but basically all religious and ideological belief systems that have the same influence as religion, such as communism. It took the shape of religion, another example is nazism. Do this or that and we create Utopia.

But I do sympathise less with abrahamic religion and think that for the most part they've been (very) harmful to humanity. I'm against the orthodoxy which is why I do sympathise with gnosticism but that's been oppressed because it wasn't orthodox and therefore didn't provide tyrannical men the excuse to tell others what to do, think and feel. I'm against the guilt complex, the unreasonable god, the oppression of sexuality and women, et cetera. In the sense of religion we'd be much better off with ancient Greek gods, or the Celtic or Germanic pantheon.* Abrahamic religions are rigid with the prime example of islam; if I am to give criteria as to what makes a religion 'better' or 'worse', one of the major ones would be that the religion is able to progress, proceed and move forward in time, philosophy, dogma and society in general. Islam and Judaism are very very rigid and so is christianity to quite an extent but they reformed and there's a huuuuuuge variety in churches and what they preach.

I acknowledge bad influences of religion in general, but I see it as something that just IS. I think that at least here in the West we're becoming more secular, moving away from God and religion. But I do think that religion, pantheons and the belief in life after death are inherent to humanity. That's just how things work in a world you don't quite understand, where you have very little control over your surroundings, where you're constantly in danger and where food often is scarce. You try to explain things and try to gain extra influence over your surroundings, you want comfort for your short life and the hope of something better. I could say that I'm 'against' that but it wouldn't make much sense. I can also say I'm 'against' earthquakes but I see them as something that just inherently exists. Religion and humanity are very closely intertwined and I understand why. I could be 'against' Hinduism (example) but what's the point? I'm at most against Hinduism's consequences for its followers. I think it's a bit pointless to rant against Shiva if Shiva does no harm to the world. (again, example) Because then it's just folklore, tradition, a set of myths and a philosophy. (if harmless, if not harmless it's of course more than just that and then I argue against these things.)

I do like to read about philosophies and other religions. I'm also very interested in old germanic cultures and religions, and their gods and myths. I don't 'hate' the concept of religion per se. However, it's a great tool of oppression (just like ideology) and may hinder the progress of humanity. I don't like the consequences of religion at all and can only hope that the world will become more and more secular with time, but the monster of radicalism is never gone. And THAT's the REAL threat. You can kill me because of some god that somehow decided that I'm not worthy of life, but you can also kill me because I hinder the progress of some ideology.

We need to get rid of the mechanisms of religion which at the same time is impossible because we can't just re-wire our brains. We can only become more aware and more critical.


*I say that now, I'm just beginning to explore the subject.

Perhaps because of the time and place I was raised I'm vehemently anti-Christian, but that's because I'm a moral and decent person, not because I'm Atheist.

I'd have '666' tattooed on the back of my hand if it weren't inspired by such a stupid book.

Depending on what do you mean by 'against'. I do not agree with most of claims of all religions. I consider the 'idea' of supernatural borderline nonsense. However, I usually have no problem with people believing.

As.an atheist and secularist, I am not opposed to personal belief in and practice of any religion.However, I am opposed to the effects of religion on society and politics, e.g.:
- Indoctrination of children with religious beliefs, for example by parents or at religious schools.
- Young Earth Creationism, New-age mysticism and other anti-scientific dogma, and their effects on the teaching and application of science.
- Religion-based discrimination demographic groups e.g. women, homosexuals.
I am not opposed to the personal practice of religion of any kind, as long as it does no harm.

I agree. Some religions or sects within those religions (Islam, Christianity) have become movements of hatred. Promoting discrimination and harm to people or restricting their human rights because they are gay, female or don't believe in the same god or religion. Such organised religions are often a poison to both society and to its own believers, giving them screwed up and malicious attitudes towards others. In my childhood I used to think Christians were good people but nowadays I know that many of them have their hearts full of hatred, especially towards gay people.