Four critiques of religion

Religion misrepresents the origins of humankind and the cosmos;

Religion demands unreasonable suppression of human nature;

Religion inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority; and

Religion expresses hostility to free inquiry.

Any and all points are up for discussion.

 

It depends on the religion. My religion, Progressive Christian Humanism, doesn't do any of those things. It accepts Big bang,values free thought, and condemns violence and blind submission to authority.

 

define religion, believing in god doesnt lead to violence, nor neccesarily even limit people's actions because they are worried about judgement.

the same could be said about science anyway
science demands unreasonable suppression of human nature
i cant smoke cigarettes outside in public because it is said to cause cancer. science dictates that cigs bring cancer, and the law dictates that i cant smoke em in public because of this. i am a human, and smoking cigarettes is part of my nature. science has resricted my freedom.

the term human nature is outdated you may want to rethink that.
modern man is different from renaissance man is different from the cave man
i do not believe that there is anything definable that man shares with himself through out history. religion is a part of living in a society. you are hinting at deeper issues about peoples beliefs and habits, which originate as a result of living within a structured world.

 

Are you speaking of an agnostics position or are you defining religion as something more salient, a personel god?

Why is it religion and science are constantly being compared?

Are you suggesting that if a baby born in the renaissance were somehow raised in the current time period it would show signs of a less evolved state?

Wheres your evidence to back up your assumption?

The passing down of knowledge, the want to propogate the species?

Is not religion a belief?

Why make the same connection twice?

 

Does it only accept some of what the bible says, if so how did it's founders choose what to keep and what to toss away?

 

Personally I feel that all of these are dependent upon how religion is approached in the first place.

 

please stop confusing christerism with all of religion. christianity is A religion. a false one at that. or so it has mostly become in today's world, though it didin't likely start out to be.

if you tell people to be honest and then you tell them to lie to themselves, this is obviously a contradiction. it is one popular organized beliefs have a tendency over time to fall prey to.

there ARE beliefs, which DO NOT express hostility toward free inquiry. it is even possible that none of them started out by doing so.

religions are not born powerful. accepting that civil authority and even economic interests are often more materially powerful is a reality revealer of organized belief had to avoid appearing attempting to deny. most would never have lived long enough for any of us to have heard of them at all otherwise.

suppression of human nature is an exercise in mindfulness. it is also a badge of association with many beliefs. it is neather good nor bad as long as followers limit themselves to imposing ONLY on themselves. when they attempt to impose it on others, of course it becomes tyranny. doing so is called fanaticism. most original revealer of organized beliefs strongly opposed and attempted to discourage fanaticism. of course fanatics deliberately ignore and deny this, and making up the most vocal segment of religious populations, give them the bad name this thread deals with.

and yes, if taken literally, beliefs misrepresent many things that they use as mimes and parables. this IS one of the real problems with simple minded approaches to attempting to understand them.

pretending to know what is not know is not wisdom. and taking beliefs to be about such pretended knowledge is to completely miss their redeeming virtues and the entire points of their existence, which is may be summed up much less biasedly by saying, "don't hurt each other and clean up your mess". but how do you get people to actually do that. to not hurt each other and clean up after themselves?

all the dogma, drama, and mumbo jumbo, all the story telling and fantasy, all the threats, bribes, and pleadings, they are at heart about this one thing, that is at root actually a good thing.

beliefs DO go bad. sometimes as a result of becoming popular. sometimes, often, as a MEANS of becoming popular, for all those alterior motivations of political, economic and social forces.

this is one reason there are many. in order to not all of them be always corrupt, there is, from time to time a renewal, once every thousand years, give or take a few hundred. this is what all those returns spoken of were and will continue to be about. not some spectacle of 'ending'.

 

Rudenoodle,

I would agree-- if by "religion" you mean "organized religion".

 

One critique of religion:

Religion's pussy is less wet than your mom's.

 

Would un-orginized religion be agnostisism?

 

Well, Rastafarianism is an unorganized religion.

Your first point applies, and the third one very slightly, but not the other two.

And then there's the view point expressed by (I'm starting to feel klike a preacher here!) The Plain Truth ministry-- which accepts christianity and denies religion.

 

But not your moms. She was dry as hell when we passed her around last night.

 

Are you implying that Rastafarian ism is a positive movement in the world?

Even it's doctrine on "white devils", or are we just looking at Rastafarianism as it is presented to us in popular culture?

I would say that it was an organized religion and a racist one at that.

 

You've got it all wrong. A popular misconception.

They're not organized-- there's no church, and no hiearchy.

And it's doctrine is NOT "white devils". (for the record, I'm white).

I'm going to quote and old friend, Rob-- one of the original Jamaican Rastas, a man who knew Marcus Garvey in the beginning:

“Rastafarism is not about hate.
Babylon rules the world, and white men rule in Babylon, and do the bidding of the Devil. The Devil bids hatred and oppression to all the people of the world.

To be a follower of the Ras Tafari requires only that Iman lead a proper life- a path available to any man through the book. To be oppressed by Babylon requires only that Iman be a man.

Jack is a [white]Man- and an enemy of Babylon. Jack is not a Rasta Man it is true. But Jack is a man worthy of respect and friendship. I and I trust Jack with the life of I and I’s family.

In the old days at Pinnicle, oppression came from men both black and white. The Locksmen grew the dreads and dreaded they were. With the power of Haile Selassie’s mane of the lion, I and I came to be recognized and Rastafarianism began to spread throughout Jamaica and the world. Sometimes the spread is met with violence, and sometimes Rasta’s must fight back.

Unfortunately, Some of Iman have slipped in to the way of Babylon; hatred, and the longing to take revenge rule the lives of too many Rastafarians. One is too many.

The words of Haile Selassie ring as true today as yesterday and tomorrow: "It is not only war that can stop war but men of goodwill, conscious of their mission can deal with such deadly a enemy."
---------
I have personally had many hardcore Rasta friends over the years-- and I mean real friends, the kind you can go through death and life with.

Although I disagree with their beliefs, and condem the way they treat women (with a biblical justifacation), I find myself forced to admire the strenght of their convictions. To them, religion is between a man and god and no one else.

 

Come on, you don't see this as racist?

 

No. It's not.

White men ruled the world. Now a black man does. Obama is a part of babylon, an insturment of the devil, and an enemy of Iman. [were talking the Rasta viewpoint-- not mine]
Real Rasta are true anarchist.
-----------------
The squeaky wheel get's the grease, wheather it be al-quida, white hating blackman, or racist whites. But that doesn't mean they represent everyone. It just makes better press.

Take atheist :

Some atheist are ignorant fools who think they can use science as a weapon to bash religious belief. And then there are some who simply do not believe god exist and feel no need to.

The latter is a true atheist that has strentgh in thier convictions; the former somebody with an axe to grind-- and they are the only ones who feel the need to be public.
---------
I think all muslims are fools; but I only condem those who use thier foolishness as justifacation to impose themselves on the lives of others. Same with christians etc.

 

You realize Obama is President of the United States and not king of the world correct?

What does anarchy have to do with white men being in collaboration with the devil in Rastafarian culture, it would seem that the mythology of Rastafarian teachings points to that at least it is white men who are in collaboration with there devil but the rasta (must be a group?) are not in the same collaboration, I would say that this is tribalism defined.

I'm implying that Rastafarianism is racist not any rasta's themselves necessarily

What is wrong with being public, who would you be to judge who is a real atheist and who is not, why would you want to?

 

heres a critique for ya

by demonizing other peoples beliefs as the root of all evil, rudenoodle can feel better about his own unjustified existence.

youre a hatemonger masquerading as an intellectual

 

1) don't kid yourself-- the President of the United States has more control over this world than any other individual, no?

2&3) Rasta follow no rules but those in the bible-- close enough to anarchy.

Again, there is no requirment to be black to be a rasta. The only rasta "teachings" are to follow the LITERAL word of the bible. The Bible-- verbatim-- is thier only mythology.
You simply cannot be part of babylon. And if you are part of babylon, then your skin color dosen't matter. No preachers, no baptisms, nothing, unless it's personal.

A white man who is not a part of Babylon is welcome; a black man who is, is not. Rastafarianism is not racist.

4) I judge nothing. I merely note that core belief systems (including atheism) are often subject to misrepresentation by a vocal minority.
But what I do want is for people to THINK insteasd of KNOW. And I want the same back.
-------------
It's human nature to cover one's doubts BY GETTING LOUD.

To questions another's beliefs is one thing, to declare your rightness and their wrongness is another.

You're obviously an atheist who feels the need to bash religion--why?
Does it make you feel more secure about your take on things? or are you preaching?

What's the difference between you and thmnax? You have some facts that he lacks. But there's a whole lot of information you don't have. Maybe he's got some of it-- me, I don't know.

But I do know this: Science does not preclude the possibility of a god.

 

No.

It would seem you definition of anarchy veries from mine.

Thats a diffrent can of worms.

Would you say it's tribalistic?

What does this have to do with anything, seriously what are you talking about?

When did I declare I was right?

This is a thread for agnosticism and atheism if you have a problem with my posts I would recommend not reading them, if you don't want to discuss religion why are you here?

I don't know who THmnax is what does this have to do with any of the critiques I mentioned?

Did I say it did?