Can a Person hate a religion without hating the religion's followers and or believers

[tradeunionsupporter]

Can a Person hate a religion without hating the religion's followers and or believers for example can an Atheist hate Christianity without hating Christians and hate Judaism without hating Jews and hate Islam without hating Muslims is this possible ?

[BostonCharlie]

You can from your point of view but since many believers take their religion as an important part of their identity, they likely will take it as hating on them personally. So if you're not wanting to alienate said person, you need to be cautious about how you express your attitude.

[ColonelCossack]

I don't see why not. You can hate the religion's ideals etc but see the followers as merely misled.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have many christians in my family and friends that I love very much.
Im more of a post-theist than an atheist but the point still stands.

[¿Que?]

Yes. I went out on a couple of dates with a very religious catholic girl from Guatemala. I really liked her, too, because she was super leftist and awesome. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for some reason I can't explain and won't get into here because it'd be off topic :(

I'm atheist btw.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Yes you can, just the same as you can hate hot dogs but not people who eat them. Hating dogma does not mean automatically hating those who associate themselves with it, but it does happen that way as a poster above mentioned.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do I "hate" the rickets and malaria? Not really, although I would prefer that they no longer exist.

[ComradeMan]

Do I "hate" the rickets and malaria? Not really, although I would prefer that they no longer exist.

False analogy- rickets and malaria do not have shrines nor do they influence people's lifestyle choices and philosophies.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for your answers.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

They are more than likely going to hate you :(

[Nox]

That's like saying can a person hate fascism without hating a fascist, if I judged a fascist on his political beliefs alone then I would certainly hate him. The same applies to a religious person.

[xub3rn00dlex]

That's like saying can a person hate fascism without hating a fascist, if I judged a fascist on his political beliefs alone then I would certainly hate him. The same applies to a religious person.

I'd have to disagree with you there. Most of the people I associate with are religious, and I haven't a single ounce of hate for them. Sure I don't agree with their philosophy and beliefs, but they don't force it onto me or any of that. However, fascists I cannot stand, based on their ideology, personalities, or politics, it all has no difference. A fascist is a fascist, and they cannot exist.

[Nox]

I'd have to disagree with you there. Most of the people I associate with are religious, and I haven't a single ounce of hate for them. Sure I don't agree with their philosophy and beliefs, but they don't force it onto me or any of that. However, fascists I cannot stand, based on their ideology, personalities, or politics, it all has no difference. A fascist is a fascist, and they cannot exist.

It's interesting that you disagree there. Fascism and Religion are both two different beliefs, in my opinion they are both stupid beliefs that are dangerous to mankind. If I judged someone solely on their beliefs, whether they are a fascist or a religious person, that gives me a negative opinion of them.

But of course, that's never the case. I judge people on everything, not just their beliefs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

False analogy- rickets and malaria do not have shrines nor do they influence people's lifestyle choices and philosophies.

No surprise that the apologist completely misses the point. Isn't there a ring you ought to be kissing somewhere? Papist quisling.

Religions spread and perpetuate themselves by making their homes in minds that lack the intellectual defences to critically analyse and reject them. This is usually because the mind is very young and more liable to uncritically accept what is given to it by perceived authority figures, but in some cases this is because the mind in question never developed any effective intellectual defences in the first place.

Not to mention that infectious and environmental diseases have a wide variety of physiological effects, some of which can effect behaviour. For example, the protozoan infectious parasite Toxoplasma gondii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis) is suspected to have a role in schizophrenia. Also, deficiencies and excesses in essential nutrients and minerals can induce behavioural changes.

Of course, the pontifical 'pologist also forgets that shit like shrines, lifestyle choices and philosophies are chosen by people after the fact - it's exposure to religion that comes first, not the rationalisation as to why one believes in it.

[ComradeMan]

No surprise that the apologist completely misses the point. Isn't there a ring you ought to be kissing somewhere? Papist quisling.

I'm not Catholic shit for brains but you can't present an objective argument. Your analogy was trivial and pathetic- deal with it.


Religions spread and perpetuate themselves by making their homes in minds that lack the intellectual defences to critically analyse and reject them.

Is that..... meme theory? Where's your empirical evidence for that Dr Magneto? Pity that some of the greatest intellects of humanity were fairly religious- including your own beloved Galileo :crying:


Of course, the pontifical 'pologist also forgets that shit like shrines, lifestyle choices and philosophies are chosen by people after the fact - it's exposure to religion that comes first, not the rationalisation as to why one believes in it.

I'm not Catholic (second time).:laugh:

Learn how to construct an argument and leave the ad hominems.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not Catholic shit for brains but you can't present an objective argument. Your analogy was trivial and pathetic- deal with it.

For someone who says they aren't Catholic, you sure like to defend the Catholic Church, an indefensible institution if there ever was one.

Mind you, since most lay Catholics in developed nations pretty much ignore what their Church has to say (the Pope whines about it all the time!), I shouldn't be surprised that it takes a non-Catholic to defend the Church.


Is that..... meme theory? Where's your empirical evidence for that Dr Magneto?

Are you actually asking for empirical evidence that children lack critical thinking skills, unless they are taught them? Fuck off, idiot.


Pity that some of the greatest intellects of humanity were fairly religious- including your own beloved Galileo :crying:

Good thing their religiosity had nothing to do with their discoveries then, isn't it?


I'm not Catholic (second time).:laugh:

Learn how to construct an argument and leave the ad hominems.

Learn the difference between between being called a Catholic and being accused of apologism for the Church.

[ComradeMan]

For someone who says they aren't Catholic, you sure like to defend the Catholic Church, an indefensible institution if there ever was one. Mind you, since most lay Catholics in developed nations pretty much ignore what their Church has to say (the Pope whines about it all the time!), I shouldn't be surprised that it takes a non-Catholic to defend the Church.

Another strawman argument. If you are referring to a previous thread it was on a point that was ahistorical and distorted. Just because someone doesn't like the Nazis it would not be justification to make up stuff about them or falsify history.

Wrong again, I am not even a lay Catholic.


FAre you actually asking for empirical evidence that children lack critical thinking skills, unless they are taught them? Fuck off, idiot.

No, you are the fucking idiot for trying to present your argument with memetics. :laugh:


Good thing their religiosity had nothing to do with their discoveries then, isn't it?

Well I think you'll find that Galileo though that the Bible was without error and that scientific theory needed to be adjusted in order to confirm this. And then there's Newton.... LOL!!!


Learn the difference between between being called a Catholic and being accused of apologism for the Church.

Learn the difference between "apologism for the Church" and trying to point out historical misconceptions and inaccuracies- "papist quisling", and while you're at it learn to stop being such an obnoxious self-righteous prick.

[ZrianKobani]

It's possible but I'd strongly urge the atheist to be careful in how they express it; a practicing Christian or Muslim lives their life according to what their religion teaches, to attack how someone lives and their reasons for doing so can be easily misconstrued as attacking the person themselves.

"Love the sinner and hate the sin" as it were.

As I tell all the brethren that use that tired mantra:

Love the sinner and deal with the sin in your own life for far be it for you to convict while you remain in sin.

I guess I'd re-word it for the atheist as:

Love the theist and deal with the theism or atheism in your own life for far be it for you to convict against theism when you yourself hate proselytizing.

[Sensible Socialist]

I hate the concept of religion and the fact that billions of people cling to it, but I don't hate the people for believing in it. It's a crazy world, full of hate, anger, and violence. Sometimes people look to fantasy for guidance. I think they're misguided and a bit crazy, but I don't hate people that hear voices or suffer from other pyscological problems. I want to help them get rid of their affliction.

[ZrianKobani]

I don't see why not. You can hate the religion's ideals etc but see the followers as merely misled.

Isn't that kind of like people who "love" gays but hate the "lifestyle" they're "stuck" in?

[Sensible Socialist]

Isn't that kind of like people who "love" gays but hate the "lifestyle" they're "stuck" in?
Except that you can't change your sexuality, while it's possibly to open your mind and escape the confines of religion.

[Ose]

Of course one can hate religion without hating the religious. Just as one can hate capitalism without hating the (majority of) workers who accept it due to misinformation and propaganda. People who have been raised to be religious are simply victims.

[ZrianKobani]

Except that you can't change your sexuality, while it's possibly to open your mind and escape the confines of religion.

That's what I was told when I came out, just replace religion with homosexuality.

Some choose to believe in God and some don't; if one side offers it's ideas to the other and is turned away, leave it at that and leave it in peace.

Looking down on either side helps no one and hurts everyone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Another strawman argument. If you are referring to a previous thread it was on a point that was ahistorical and distorted. Just because someone doesn't like the Nazis it would not be justification to make up stuff about them or falsify history.

Wrong again, I am not even a lay Catholic.

Read my fucking post again, because I did not call you a lay Catholic. I said that it is no surprise that it takes a non-Catholic to defend the Church.


No, you are the fucking idiot for trying to present your argument with memetics. :laugh:

My argument works perfectly fine with or without memetics, Mr Shit-for-brains-and-eyes, because the crux of it is that people are not born with critical thinking skills and have to be taught them.


Well I think you'll find that Galileo though that the Bible was without error and that scientific theory needed to be adjusted in order to confirm this.

That must be why he proposed a heliocentric cosmology at odds with the geocentric one presented in the Bible. :rolleyes:


And then there's Newton.... LOL!!!

Yes, he was quite the alchemist. But that's not why people remember him, is it?


Learn the difference between "apologism for the Church" and trying to point out historical misconceptions and inaccuracies- "papist quisling", and while you're at it learn to stop being such an obnoxious self-righteous prick.

I'll stop when you stop, apologist. Nitpicking over historical details and ignoring the larger picture is the modus operandi of apologists of all stripes.

[ZrianKobani]

Of course one can hate religion without hating the religious. Just as one can hate capitalism without hating the (majority of) workers who accept it due to misinformation and propaganda. People who have been raised to be religious are simply victims.

But what if they've studied atheism, listened to it, and simply choose to remain theistic?

[xub3rn00dlex]

It's interesting that you disagree there. Fascism and Religion are both two different beliefs, in my opinion they are both stupid beliefs that are dangerous to mankind. If I judged someone solely on their beliefs, whether they are a fascist or a religious person, that gives me a negative opinion of them.

I don't disagree that they are stupid beliefs and ultimately dangerous to mankind, but that doesn't make religious folk sit in the same boat as fascists. If a religious person does ever bring up faith with me, I let them know I view it as a fault and not a positive thing, but it usually doesn't lead into anything derogatory. On a side note, I do find it interesting that with the growth of islamophobia, debating with islamic people has turned out in my experience more civil and educational than with those of christian faiths.


But of course, that's never the case. I judge people on everything, not just their beliefs.

Exactly, I never judge people based on religious belief. I do however, judge based on fascist belief. I don't hold working class people who are faithful to a certain religion at fault, because I feel it is societies fault for forcing them to resort to these extreme "wishful" measures to feel better in their average workday. I refuse to tolerate fascism though, regardless of condition. Not a single being is more supreme to another, period.



But what if they've studied atheism, listened to it, and simply choose to remain theistic?

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. How many people have studied communism/socialism/anarchism, listened to it, and simply chose to remain wage-slaves?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's what I was told when I came out, just replace religion with homosexuality.

Except that in this case, the facts are that sexuality seems pretty solidly determined by puberty, whereas religion has no such basis.


Some choose to believe in God and some don't; if one side offers it's ideas to the other and is turned away, leave it at that and leave it in peace.

Looking down on either side helps no one and hurts everyone.

The problem is that what you describe is atypical religious behaviour - if only all peddlers of religion could be turned away by telling them once, "not interested".

Unfortunately, that's not how religion has operated historically, nor how it operates today.


But what if they've studied atheism, listened to it, and simply choose to remain theistic?

You don't need to "study atheism". You just need to realise that religion is all made-up crap with no evidence.

[Klaatu]

Religion is based entirely on different peoples' opinions. (there are no scientific facts in any religion)
Some opinions are hateful, therefore some religions are hateful.
The best religions are those that keep their opinion to themselves.
The worst religions are the ones that do not keep opinions to themselves.

That's one way to gauge a religion, how well it's followers keeps their mouths shut in the public arena.

[Ose]

But what if they've studied atheism, listened to it, and simply choose to remain theistic?Atheism is not something to be studied in the manner of a system of belief or what have you. (EDIT: What Noxion said.) It is simply the rejection of theism. Therefore, for a theist to become an atheist, it is a study of theism that is necessary. And when I say that, I mean a study from a neutral perspective, free from any preconceptions, which would be difficult for someone to undertake who has been brought up and has lived their life under the influence of theist dogma.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Atheism is not something to be studied in the manner of a system of belief or what have you. (EDIT: What Noxion said.) It is simply the rejection of theism. Therefore, for a theist to become an atheist, it is a study of theism that is necessary. And when I say that, I mean a study from a neutral perspective, free from any preconceptions, which would be difficult for someone to undertake who has been brought up and has lived their life under the influence of theist dogma.

This is why I think religious education is important, because one gets to learn from an early age of the sheer variety of religious beliefs through history and across the globe.

[Viet Minh]

Yes, very much so. For one thing the reason that many athiests 'hate' religion is because they feel the religious leaders brainwash them and lie to them, or use the religion to persecute others. So I would say you can hate a religion generally, you can hate the established hierarchy of that religion, and you can hate those who enable and empower it. But to hate all of the followers of that particular religion is beyond ignorant, its intentionally bigoted.


It's interesting that you disagree there. Fascism and Religion are both two different beliefs, in my opinion they are both stupid beliefs that are dangerous to mankind. If I judged someone solely on their beliefs, whether they are a fascist or a religious person, that gives me a negative opinion of them.

But of course, that's never the case. I judge people on everything, not just their beliefs.

The difference between religious and political beliefs is the former affects only the individual, when it starts to affect others it becomes political.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank you for your answers.

[Klaatu]

This is why I think religious education is important, because one gets to learn from an early age of the sheer variety of religious beliefs through history and across the globe.

Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" has completely changed my way of thinking about religion. I have come to realize that ALL religion is based on myth and opinion. There is no "correct" religion, because there is no "correct" opinion.

[Sir Comradical]

Absolutely. I hate all religions especially the three semitic ones but I don't hates Jews, Christians or Muslims.

[Viet Minh]

Religion is based entirely on different peoples' opinions. (there are no scientific facts in any religion)
Some opinions are hateful, therefore some religions are hateful.
The best religions are those that keep their opinion to themselves.
The worst religions are the ones that do not keep opinions to themselves.

That's one way to gauge a religion, how well it's followers keeps their mouths shut in the public arena.

Religions with secrets are worse though imo, at that stage they are more likely to be cults. Scientology could never be accused of keeping their mouths shut in the public arena perhaps, but their dangerous side is the one thats hidden from sight.

[ComradeMan]

Read my fucking post again, because I did not call you a lay Catholic. I said that it is no surprise that it takes a non-Catholic to defend the Church.

But I wasn't "defending the Catholic Church" in its entirety like some fucking Torquemada, but rather a specific point of accuracy and historicity.


My argument works perfectly fine with or without memetics, Mr Shit-for-brains-and-eyes, because the crux of it is that people are not born with critical thinking skills and have to be taught them.

It only works on reification and presenting, pseudo-scientifically, as scientific fact that which cannot be verified scientifically. :rolleyes:


That must be why he proposed a heliocentric cosmology at odds with the geocentric one presented in the Bible. :rolleyes:

Galileo: "...The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable. "
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615)

There is no "geocentric model" presented in the Bible, the vague allusions to what might be possibly interpreted as geocentrism (of course ignoring allegory, metaphor and symbolism) were later even condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus much in the spirit of Galileo's letter.


Yes, he was quite the alchemist. But that's not why people remember him, is it?

He wrote more on non-scientific themes than scientific ones and his investigation was an attempt to understand the harmony of a universe created by his perception of God.


I'll stop when you stop, apologist. Nitpicking over historical details and ignoring the larger picture is the modus operandi of apologists of all stripes.

You still can't seem to explain why pointing out when facts are wrong, distorted or just false is apologism. If I said that Hitler had a false moustache and someone pointed out that was a lot of shit would it make them a Nazi apologist? :rolleyes:

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thanks for all your posts.

[Waltraute]

There's enough hate in the world, it seems. Leftists, in general have a problem with tolerance towards this end. Developments of the past century are testament to this. As regards much else, I'm content to agree with Tabori, Tolstoi, Shelley, et alia