I hate all religions equally, am I a bigot?

[ComradeG1967]

I was brought up in a Catholic family, but growing up in Glasgow with all the sectarian nonsense I have just decided that religion is devisive as well as being exploitative. I have little time for anybody who believes in it and believe that along with money it is the root of much evil.

I do not hate any member of any religion (that would be as bad as a Prod hating a Catholic), but I hate the religions themselves.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

religons exclude members of humanity with diffrent Ideas. religons are bigitory in nature.

[mykittyhasaboner]

hating religion itself, and people who practice religion, doesn't make you a bigot. it just makes you non-religious. ;)

if you have little time for religious people, then i guess your just overly critical of people. take it from me, i absolutely despise religion, but i have no problem with befriending anyone who is religious. unless they are like a few religious types and push their agenda on everybody. but those people are just assholes like anyone else.

[mykittyhasaboner]

religons exclude members of humanity with diffrent Ideas. religons are bigitory in nature.

while this is true to some extent, many religions are open to a wider range of ideas, rather than a specific dogma. even some christian sects are open to homosexuals practicing their religion, while others aren't so tolerant. :thumbdown:

[ComradeG1967]

hating religion itself, and people who practice religion, doesn't make you a bigot. it just makes you non-religious. ;)

if you have little time for religious people, then i guess your just overly critical of people. take it from me, i absolutely despise religion, but i have no problem with befriending anyone who is religious. unless they are like a few religious types and push their agenda on everybody. but those people are just assholes like anyone else.

If you read my post again you will see I said:


I do not hate any member of any religion (that would be as bad as a Prod hating a Catholic), but I hate the religions themselves. ;)

I'll happily be friends with some religious type, as long as they are a decent human being and not a bigot, but they will have to understand that I will think there fairy tale religion is a load of pish.

[Oneironaut]

before you decide you don't have time for people who are religious, you need to understand why it is that they have decided faith is an important aspect of their life. from here you can always dissect their beliefs and pin them into corners. you can not hold people responsible for turning to faith in the alienated society we trudge through but you can offer them our atheist opinion of the matter. it may take time for an individual to accept atheism, being that it may very well go against everything they have previously comprehended, but i assure you with enough conversations he/she will likely become open to at least the possibility of god's nonexistence. we have to be calm and respectful to people (minus fascists) when we are engaging them in debate as communists.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'll happily be friends with some religious type, as long as they are a decent human being and not a bigot, but they will have to understand that I will think there fairy tale religion is a load of pish.

of course, i debate my religious friends all the time. :D

[Random Precision]

Moved to Religion.

[mikelepore]

I do not hate any member of any religion (that would be as bad as a Prod hating a Catholic), but I hate the religions themselves.

Even if you did hate the individual members, it still wouldn't be bigotry. (I assume that hate in this context simply means a feeling of repulsion, and not the desire to assault them.) In general, being repulsed by people because of what do and say isn't bigotry. Repulsion due a characteristic that people are born with is bigotry. If I'm seen annoying other people by lecturing them about heaven and hell, you have every right to be disgusted by my behavior. I don't think it's such a big leap from there to refering to it as feeling hatred.

[spice756]

of course, i debate my religious friends all the time. :D


I don't because I don't understand religion at all.To them it is more than belief.The weak religious people you can reason with and the hard religious people you cannot .They will go to wars to fight for their religious beliefs.

If you don't belief in religion or just say a remark they get all hostile.To them religion is like having other body part.That is how real it is for them.


My advice don't talk about religion and politics with your friends or they may not be you friend after.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, you aren't. :)

As a tangent point, though, why do you hate all religions equally? Surely Islam is more worthy of your hatred than say, buddhism, or jainism?

-Alex

[ComradeG1967]

No, you aren't. :)

As a tangent point, though, why do you hate all religions equally? Surely Islam is more worthy of your hatred than say, buddhism, or jainism?

-Alex

Thats actually a good point. Some are worse than others, but they are all pish.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yeah, I agree with you that they're all demonstrably incorrect. I think a more interesting question, though, is how the world's religions impact on society, and how to respond to that impact.

I expect you'd probably agree with me that religions have a negative influence on society - if only in so much as they are obviously wrong on a great deal of questions. How do you think that problem should be resolved?

-Alex

[F9]

of course, i debate my religious friends all the time. :D

yeah and listen the HUGE argument...you are immoral and you are going and burn in hell!:rolleyes::rolleyes:there is not debate usually with religious people,they just throw the you go to hell "argument" and they go away.

Fuserg9:star:

[ComradeG1967]

Yeah, I agree with you that they're all demonstrably incorrect. I think a more interesting question, though, is how the world's religions impact on society, and how to respond to that impact.

I expect you'd probably agree with me that religions have a negative influence on society - if only in so much as they are obviously wrong on a great deal of questions. How do you think that problem should be resolved?

-Alex

Education. The more educated people are the less likely they are to be religious.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Do you mean general education, or specifically on the subject of religious beliefs?

-Alex

[Frost]

Education. The more educated people are the less likely they are to be religious.

You may not be a bigot, but that sounds like a statement of ignorance. Unless you have some scientific proof that shows that religious faith and education are polar opposites.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Unless you have some scientific proof that shows that religious faith and education are polar opposites

http://atheism.about.com/od/excusingantiatheistbigotry/a/Privileged.htm



A letter published in Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)) in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife) was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Science), only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-99) In the same year Frank Sulloway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sulloway) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology) and Michael Shermer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer) of California State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University) conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation) indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.


-Alex

[Chapter 24]

You are not a bigot for hating divisive, metaphysical sects that don't do anything positive for humanity and only leech off its members under a false premise of spiritual security. In fact you're plenty sane for doing so.

[Decolonize The Left]

Unless you have some scientific proof that shows that religious faith and education are polar opposites.

No need for science, although thanks to BurnTheOliveTree for that quote.

Here's all you need, the definition of "education:"
"the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life." (dictionary.com, bold added)

How is that compatible with religion, which can't be "general knowledge" as one can't know if God actually exists, and is fundamentally contradictory with the "powers of reasoning and judgment" as it posits supernatural occurrences and histories?

- August

[Random Precision]

Split posts dealing with fascism.

[Black Sheep]

I hate all religions equally, am I a bigot?
Naw,you are a logical fellow with healthy emotions.

[Faction2008]

No you are not a bigot as you are just hating ideas that make people into Bigots i.e. Religions.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

while this is true to some extent, many religions are open to a wider range of ideas, rather than a specific dogma. even some christian sects are open to homosexuals practicing their religion, while others aren't so tolerant. :thumbdown:

I said the vary nature of religon in no means did i say all groups that practice religon. religon can be up lifting when it is apllied in a spiritual sence, and a community and less of a burocraccy. here are some exaples the in the Americas some cathlic church backed the working class mostly idigenous culture in latin amereican hence libaration theolgy. the quakers assisted during the under ground rail road in the U.S. and don't forget Martin Luther King Jr. the only major problem I have with religons are that they tend to exclude pepole of other faiths and Ideas, when any group dose this they become corropt. another is it burrocracy and it's link to greed espcail in the chatolic church in eroupe. there are many more pro and cons on religon here are only a few. I would like to here about other religon other then christanity this is the only on I know a great deal of. I some time refer to my self as a Christian Anarchist eceptin the truth love and humanity and leaveing behinde the greed and burrocarzy of the church.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I some time refer to my self as a Christian Anarchist eceptin the truth love and humanity and leaveing behinde the greed and burrocarzy of the church.


Not to be mean, but the word is *bureaucracy. :)

Also, do you actually believe the doctrines of christianity? All of them? Even the nasty "render unto ceasar" stuff, and the homophobia and sexism and racism and violence?

-Alex

[Demogorgon]

No you are not a bigot as you are just hating ideas that make people into Bigots i.e. Religions.
Ideas turning people into bigots? Dear oh dear

Not to be mean, but the word is *bureaucracy. :)

Also, do you actually believe the doctrines of christianity? All of them? Even the nasty "render unto ceasar" stuff, and the homophobia and sexism and racism and violence?

-Alex
Christianity does not have any hard and fast doctrines because there are too many branches of it. Different branches have different beliefs. How do you know his branch is homophobic?

And how do you know his "render unto caesar" interpretation is the same as your own. After all, nobody can agree what it means. The full quote is: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. On first glance that looks to me to mean that taxes were not important and that one should be focussed on non-monetary matters. That is indeed one of the interpretations doing the rounds, but as to how good it is, I cannot say.

What I can say however is what the context was (according to the Biblical story anyway). Jesus was ambushed by a loaded question from the pharisees about whether Jews should pay tax or not. Given the fact that he was known not to be any great fan of the Roman occupation they expected him to say that they should not pay the tax and that way they would be able to have him arrested for sedition (their goal all along). Jesus tries to get out of this by not answering the question at all and instead attacking them but when pressed he asks to see a coin, says that it has Caesar's head on it and makes the statement. It is important to note that Roman coins at the time carried an inscription declaring the late Augustus Caesar to be a God which of course for blasphemy as far as the Jews were concerned. Jesus would have been keen to show indifference or contempt to the coin and that is presumably why he asked to be shown one. That way he was able to simply make what could be interpreted both as a dismissive statement about giving the coin back to Rome and as an affirmation of the legality of taxes. Therefore he was able to avoid having to explicitly avoid taxes and avoid saying anything that would get him arrested.

It is worth noting in the story that the pharisees are wrong-footed by this, showing that presumably having Jesus arrested or at least embarrassing him was exactly their intention and that he had found an escape they simply hadn't thought of.

Now that bit of biblical analysis aside, you might say "no, no Demo, it is definitely a statement calling for adherence to authority, those who say otherwise are wrong". Well leaving aside the fact that being so sure about such an ambiguous book is always a recipe for disaster, does it actually matter what it really means, if indeed it has any definite meaning at all? What is important is that there is no consensus on the matter and therefore that many Christians do not regard it as supporting authority. Given the fellow you are questioning is an anarchist, you can bet he doesn't see it as supportive of authority.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

"In reality there are as many religions as there are individuals" Ghandi

[Red Anarchist of Love]

"that many Christians do not regard it as supporting authority. Given the fellow you are questioning is an anarchist, you can bet he doesn't see it as supportive of authority." Demogorgon

the bible is supportive of authority in romans this was written by Paul. as an anarchist on does not have to except the authurity of the church by thus he dose not have to accept what the church ordains as scripture. I don't think Paul every really changed from Saw. to me, he brought down christanty from the inside by connecting it to the Empire, which Jesus had no respect for. jesus said a church is where ever two people meet in his name, in this one may find that human beings are soverign beings, and do not need to blindly listen to the aturith of church. when Jesus said to give ceasers coins to ceaer he ment don't use he money. this is the ultimate act of difence money is what imporers ceaser the the money was of no value he would have a lot less power.

[Decolonize The Left]

Christianity does not have any hard and fast doctrines because there are too many branches of it. Different branches have different beliefs. How do you know his branch is homophobic?

Actually Christianity does have a "hard and fast doctrine" - it's called the Sermon on the Mount.


And how do you know his "render unto caesar" interpretation is the same as your own. After all, nobody can agree what it means. The full quote is: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. On first glance that looks to me to mean that taxes were not important and that one should be focussed on non-monetary matters. That is indeed one of the interpretations doing the rounds, but as to how good it is, I cannot say.

Jesus' sayings, if there was a Jesus at all, are irrelevant to the question of religion and authority.


Now that bit of biblical analysis aside, you might say "no, no Demo, it is definitely a statement calling for adherence to authority, those who say otherwise are wrong". Well leaving aside the fact that being so sure about such an ambiguous book is always a recipe for disaster, does it actually matter what it really means, if indeed it has any definite meaning at all? What is important is that there is no consensus on the matter and therefore that many Christians do not regard it as supporting authority. Given the fellow you are questioning is an anarchist, you can bet he doesn't see it as supportive of authority.

Debates over the 'actual meanings' of the Bible are similarly irrelevant.

Monotheistic religion is simple:
It posits without justification a "God" (or "supreme being") which is the ultimate authority.
By extension, human beings are imperfect, sinful, and life is viewed as less valuable than heaven.

Want to be happy and perfect? Better obey God's word...

How is this not "supportive of authority?"

- August

[Demogorgon]

Actually Christianity does have a "hard and fast doctrine" - it's called the Sermon on the Mount.Of all the different things you could have claimed to be the centre of Christianity, the beatitudes are a strange one to pick. Especially as they directly contradict a lot of what many Christians pick.


Jesus' sayings, if there was a Jesus at all, are irrelevant to the question of religion and authority.

In truth, yes, because what is important is what is believed. Some people here however think the Bible is very important and hence it has to be explained.


Debates over the 'actual meanings' of the Bible are similarly irrelevant.

Monotheistic religion is simple:
It posits without justification a "God" (or "supreme being") which is the ultimate authority.
By extension, human beings are imperfect, sinful, and life is viewed as less valuable than heaven.

Want to be happy and perfect? Better obey God's word...

How is this not "supportive of authority?"

- August
That is certainly supportive of authority, but most monotheistic religions do not believe anything close to what you. Whenever somebody claims that anything to do with religion is simple, I know immediately that they are on a hiding to nothing as there is nothing more complicated than religious belief.

Most monotheistic religions view God not as the source of authority but as the source of good, with good either defined as acting in a loving manner towards others or simply doing what good conscience tells you is best. The belief is that God loves the good because they are good, not that they are good because God loves them.

Only religious fundamentalists believe what you are listing as standard religious belief.

[Decolonize The Left]

Of all the different things you could have claimed to be the centre of Christianity, the beatitudes are a strange one to pick. Especially as they directly contradict a lot of what many Christians pick.

Wait a second. We're talking about Christianity right? And you're saying that the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus basically tells people what moral code to live by - and this is Jesus the savior here - is not the center of Christianity? Does this not seem entirely contradictory to you?

The Sermon on the Mount was where Jesus flips the retributive aspects of the Old Testament on its head - it's basically the difference between the two in terms of morality and conduct.


That is certainly supportive of authority, but most monotheistic religions do not believe anything close to what you. Whenever somebody claims that anything to do with religion is simple, I know immediately that they are on a hiding to nothing as there is nothing more complicated than religious belief.

You misunderstand me - everything is simple from a certain perspective. For example, quantum mechanics may appear complicated, but it is simple when explained in a certain fashion and viewed from a certain way.


Most monotheistic religions view God not as the source of authority but as the source of good, with good either defined as acting in a loving manner towards others or simply doing what good conscience tells you is best. The belief is that God loves the good because they are good, not that they are good because God loves them.

Ok... but who defines what is good? You have used it repeatedly but assume that we all just know what it is... (newsflash: we, human beings, define what is 'good')
And yes, I understand the reversal in focus regarding the Judeo-Christian tradition (God loves the good because they are good, not they are good because God loves them). But this still has not addressed the fact that Christians (and all other monotheistic religious folk) posit a God to love them because they are good.

One very simple question would be: why not just love yourself? To this one might respond, 'but this is what I'm saying! That's Christianity!' But it's not - I don't need a God to love myself, I don't need Jesus, I don't need prayer, I don't need an institution which makes money off God, Jesus, and prayer, I don't need a Bible, I don't need a cross, I don't need any of this to love myself.

Loving oneself is not religious - just human.

- August

[Demogorgon]

Wait a second. We're talking about Christianity right? And you're saying that the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus basically tells people what moral code to live by - and this is Jesus the savior here - is not the center of Christianity? Does this not seem entirely contradictory to you?

The Sermon on the Mount was where Jesus flips the retributive aspects of the Old Testament on its head - it's basically the difference between the two in terms of morality and conduct.
The sermon on the Mount does not uniquely lay out a moral code. It is just Jesus making some powerful statements regarding his wider message. Some people see it as a very important aspect of Christian religious belief, but others don't. Only one of the Gospel writers saw fit to include it after all.


You misunderstand me - everything is simple from a certain perspective. For example, quantum mechanics may appear complicated, but it is simple when explained in a certain fashion and viewed from a certain way.

If it is explained to you in a simple way you aren't going to become any kind of expert. It is the same with religion. Your "simple" explanation of it looks to me, someone who knows quite a lot about religion, to simply be "wrong".

Your problem in trying to come up with a "simple" definition is that you insist on seeing the worst in people who follow religion and therefore have to give it as negative a spin as possible. Try to follow the principal of charity and you will be able to come up with a more accurate interpretation


Ok... but who defines what is good? You have used it repeatedly but assume that we all just know what it is... (newsflash: we, human beings, define what is 'good')Did you read my post? I told you exactly what Christianity usually defines good as, read it again.

And yes, I understand the reversal in focus regarding the Judeo-Christian tradition (God loves the good because they are good, not they are good because God loves them). But this still has not addressed the fact that Christians (and all other monotheistic religious folk) posit a God to love them because they are good.

One very simple question would be: why not just love yourself? To this one might respond, 'but this is what I'm saying! That's Christianity!' But it's not - I don't need a God to love myself, I don't need Jesus, I don't need prayer, I don't need an institution which makes money off God, Jesus, and prayer, I don't need a Bible, I don't need a cross, I don't need any of this to love myself.

Loving oneself is not religious - just human.

- August
And now I have no idea what you are talking about. Those who belief in God naturally tend to belief that said God is on their side because belief in God reflects people's own desires and values and few people desire to be hated. But how a desire to be loved turns into a belief in authority.

Incidentally if you think churches are making money off religion, I would think again, with the exception of some of the American fundamentalist churches, most are flat broke.

[Decolonize The Left]

The sermon on the Mount does not uniquely lay out a moral code. It is just Jesus making some powerful statements regarding his wider message. Some people see it as a very important aspect of Christian religious belief, but others don't. Only one of the Gospel writers saw fit to include it after all.

You couldn't be coating the Bible in prettier words. "Jesus making some powerful statements regarding his wider message." Really? Nothing about morality at all?
Matthew 5.17: "Think not that I come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Matthew 5.19: "Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Also, you should ignore that the Sermon on the Mount is also called "Expounding the law." But no one actually means law as in moral code, they just mean stuff to think about.

And just for fun, here's the first line of wikipedia's entry on Sermon on the Mount:
"In the Gospel of St. Matthew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_St._Matthew), the Sermon on the Mount is a compilation of Jesus' sayings, epitomizing his moral teaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion#Christian_ethics)."

No morals here, he's just talking lightly about some stuff people might consider doing if they feel like it...:rolleyes:


Did you read my post? I told you exactly what Christianity usually defines good as, read it again.

I'll do you one better, I'll quote you and we can see what Christianity "usually defines as good." Here we go:

Most monotheistic religions view God not as the source of authority but as the source of good, with good either defined as acting in a loving manner towards others or simply doing what good conscience tells you is best. The belief is that God loves the good because they are good, not that they are good because God loves them.

Ok. So you claim that 'good' is usually defined as:
1) "Acting in a loving manner towards others"
and/or
2) "Simply doing what good conscience tells you is best"

Problem with 1: the last Christian died on the cross.
Problem with 2: You have defined good by using "good" and "best."

So you have told me nothing of consequence.


And now I have no idea what you are talking about. Those who belief in God naturally tend to belief that said God is on their side because belief in God reflects people's own desires and values and few people desire to be hated. But how a desire to be loved turns into a belief in authority.

"Desire to be loved" turns into a belief in authority when one believes that they are loved by a supreme being who will send them to the pits of eternal fire and suffering if they don't follow the rules.


Incidentally if you think churches are making money off religion, I would think again, with the exception of some of the American fundamentalist churches, most are flat broke.

Oh good argument, the Vatican is most certainly "flat broke."

- August

[Faux Real]

I have little time for anybody who believes in it
Not a bigot so much as you are a hermit. :tt2:

[[email protected]]

donno ... i don't hate religions .. i respect all of them but i think life would be easier without commetments like religion and other things

[Demogorgon]

You couldn't be coating the Bible in prettier words. "Jesus making some powerful statements regarding his wider message." Really? Nothing about morality at all?
Matthew 5.17: "Think not that I come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Matthew 5.19: "Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Also, you should ignore that the Sermon on the Mount is also called "Expounding the law." But no one actually means law as in moral code, they just mean stuff to think about.

And just for fun, here's the first line of wikipedia's entry on Sermon on the Mount:
"In the Gospel of St. Matthew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_St._Matthew), the Sermon on the Mount is a compilation of Jesus' sayings, epitomizing his moral teaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion#Christian_ethics)."

No morals here, he's just talking lightly about some stuff people might consider doing if they feel like it...:rolleyes:
Where did I say it wasn't about morality? I said it wasn't the centre of Christian doctrine. I suggest next time you read what i have written before you reply.


I'll do you one better, I'll quote you and we can see what Christianity "usually defines as good." Here we go:

Ok. So you claim that 'good' is usually defined as:
1) "Acting in a loving manner towards others"
and/or
2) "Simply doing what good conscience tells you is best"

Problem with 1: the last Christian died on the cross.
Problem with 2: You have defined good by using "good" and "best."

So you have told me nothing of consequence.

Yes, Christians usually define good as the most loving thing or what their consciences tells them is good. The problem?


"Desire to be loved" turns into a belief in authority when one believes that they are loved by a supreme being who will send them to the pits of eternal fire and suffering if they don't follow the rules.

Given that most Christians either do not believe in hell or simply believe that it exists only on a theoretical plain and nobody ever goes there, you will have to try harder than that. Belief in hell is largely confined to fundamentalist churches.


Oh good argument, the Vatican is most certainly "flat broke."

- August
Indeed, it most certainly is. There is not a single scrap in the vatican that is not wholly committed to several different creditors. The main source of income is borrowed money and with no way to pay it off other than borrowing more it is in considerable financial hardship. The Holy See owes many times what it has. It is, to put it mildly, rather short of cash.