Thread: Tolerance towards religion and religious people

Everything you said is very true. But I think the taboo of talking negatively about religion is slowly being broken with the rise of the "New Athiests". That's probably why the religious people feel so attacked is because athiests are finally realizing that we shouldn't have respect for delusions just because they are religious in nature.

Deciding not to tolerate religion required minimal thought for me. I don't see why a page long post was required. =P

Korittke:
You make many good points, and I like that your main aim is to promote liberal democracy, making it free of seemingly nonsensical religious censures. However, the way you deliver it, at points, appears unnecessarily stereotypical:
"Religion and logical are unrelated".

You also said
"We should go as far as to classify religiosity as a psychiatric condition requiring immediate treatment". This is radically anarchistic and contradicts the most basic freedoms. One could easily argue on the same anarchistic lines that homosexuality or heterosexual recreational sex should be banned as they are illogical, i.e they achieve nothing but pleasure and do not end out in the passing of ones genes to offspring as sex is intended.
Secondly, Bruce Hood a prominent Professor at Bristol University argues that tendencies towards religion are an innate, genetic, adaptive behaviour promoted by natural selection. As religion leads, normally, to the observation of strict moral rules, which lead to cautionary behaviour, that in turn promotes safety and hence increases the chance that one will pass on their genes. Moreover, it widens social circles, that in turn may promote natural selection. Acknowledging this it seems that religion, may not be a "choice" as you suggested, but a genetic tendency. Thus it meets the criteria to join "genes" from the trio "genes, race and nationality", which you said should be immune from judgment. What is your view on this?


Moreover there is one massive incongruity:

You wish to promote total freedom, and argue that religion, inhibits freedom i.e. limiting "homosexuality". You said:
"Gender, race and nationality are nothing that can be chosen, it is what you are born with. In some situations, though, a specific religion is also imposed upon you as a child. Yet, membership of religion is non-physical and in all the civilized countries you are free to stop believing in your religion. Religion is a matter of choice".

So you saying we should judge people on their choices, if their choices seem illogical. So if you eat a hamburger instead of a salad sandwich, should I judge you on this? Should unhealthy eating be banned. By proposing the ban of nonsensical religions on the grounds that they inhibit, irrationally, certain freedoms, aren't you contradicting yourself. You wish to promote "logic", and "choice" which are utterly incompatiable. The life we choose is the best, happiest most fulfilling one. Notwithstanding this may not, and in reality probably won't be the "logical" option; whcih correlates with perfection, efficency, the option best for your health, wealth.

Where do you think that we should draw the line between "freedom" and "logic" outlined above? Both of which are attributes you seem to like.

I propose that religion should be immune from judgment just as the trio that you mentioned (genes, race, nationality) as long as it remains personal, and does not afflict or effect others.

Originally Posted by psychology student

You also said
"We should go as far as to classify religiosity as a psychiatric condition requiring immediate treatment". This is radically anarchistic and contradicts the most basic freedoms. One could easily argue on the same anarchistic lines that homosexuality or heterosexual recreational sex should be banned as they are illogical, i.e they achieve nothing but pleasure and do not end out in the passing of ones genes to offspring as sex is intended.

I don't mean to ban religions. Maybe I exaggerated a bit. Of course the point is not to be taken seriously (as in: I would not honestly put energy into making this happen), My point is simply that religiosity can be the sign of weak mental health. I don't mean to say that we should go around and put religious people in bags and take them to psychiatry.

Secondly, Bruce Hood a prominent Professor at Bristol University argues that tendencies towards religion are an innate, genetic, adaptive behaviour promoted by natural selection. As religion leads, normally, to the observation of strict moral rules, which lead to cautionary behaviour, that in turn promotes safety and hence increases the chance that one will pass on their genes. Moreover, it widens social circles, that in turn may promote natural selection.

That there seems to be a genetic predisposition in humans to seek the supernatural, in addition to simple philosophy, I agree with.

Acknowledging this it seems that religion, may not be a "choice" as you suggested, but a genetic tendency. Thus it meets the criteria to join "genes" from the trio "genes, race and nationality", which you said should be immune from judgment. What is your view on this?

While I agree with the idea that religiosity could not be result of only memetic cultural evolution but genetic evolution as well, I do not agree with the consequence you are seeing here. This is, in short, because I oppose Behaviorism being applied to humans and I oppose Determinism undermining free will. Genetics are not an excuse to ignore rational arguments, or behave anti-social, for that matter.

So you saying we should judge people on their choices, if their choices seem illogical.

Very much so.

So if you eat a hamburger instead of a salad sandwich, should I judge you on this?

Yes, you should. This is your right as a human being.

The basis of me negatively judging religion is my system of values that holds that reason is more important than faith or conformism.

In fact, me eating a hamburger at McDonalds could yield a lot of criticism and intolerance from
- far leftists, arguing that I support the capitalistic machinery of death.
- animal rights activists, arguing that the eating of meat is wrong.
- health experts, arguing that I support the eating of unhealthy food and set a bad example for children
etc.

If you feel that any of that is true for you, OK. However, the case I am arguing is that reason and humanism should be very important values in a civilized society, not healthy foods.

Should unhealthy eating be banned.

No, it should not. Religions shouldn't be banned either. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be tolerated, on a personal level.

By proposing the ban of nonsensical religions on the grounds that they inhibit, irrationally, certain freedoms, aren't you contradicting yourself.

I am not proposing a ban. Religious thought cannot be controlled through government intervention.

You wish to promote "logic", and "choice" which are utterly incompatiable. The life we choose is the best, happiest most fulfilling one. Notwithstanding this may not, and in reality probably won't be the "logical" option; whcih correlates with perfection, efficency, the option best for your health, wealth.

Here, you are throwing around a bunch of values. First, I think you imply that the eating of a hamburger is irrational or not logical. I disagree. It is simply a matter of choice whether you believe that in the particular situation you are in the eating of a hamburger correlates with your value system. However, I do not see how the eating of a hamburger defies logic or rationality. You imply that health and rationality somehow correlate.

A conversation could go like this:

"The eating of a hamburger is irrational."
"Why?"
"Because it is in your best interest to eat healthy, so as to increase the chance of living longer and increasing your quality of life"
"In this particular moment, I feel that my momentary desire for hamburger is of higher value than my long term health, especially considering that I usually eat healthy and exercise a lot."

So A would impose his value system upon B, arguing that health should be a top priority in a civilized society. This is a point I would disagree with. However, I do believe that rationalism and humanism are of highest priority in a civilized society which leads to me opposing religion. Whether rationalism and human well-being are indeed that important can be debated, however, I will not.

Please explain how this correlates to religion. I do not propose the banning of religion. I just propose they and their members be judged no differently than any other set of beliefs - by means of reason.

Where do you think that we should draw the line between "freedom" and "logic" outlined above? Both of which are attributes you seem to like.

To answer this, out of context, I would say that freedom should be maximized and reason should be enthroned. This means that we cannot force people to think rationally, but we can educate them to do so. I don't see how this is paradoxical in nature. This is going too far into politics though.

I propose that religion should be immune from judgment just as the trio that you mentioned (genes, race, nationality) as long as it remains personal, and does not afflict or effect others.

I think that by choosing to be religious, you are already affecting others indirectly, by willfully acting against logical arguments.

Just don't go crying to the authorities when the vast majority of the population of the Earth discriminates against you for not believing in a religion. If its okay for you, then everyone else should be allowed to do it too, right?

I honestly do not see how one can look around themselves and see that they are in a very small minority, and then claim that everyone else is crazy; or of weak mental health. Do you honestly believe this elitist tripe?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Just don't go crying to the authorities when the vast majority of the population of the Earth discriminates against you for not believing in a religion. If its okay for you, then everyone else should be allowed to do it too, right?

I honestly do not see how one can look around themselves and see that they are in a very small minority, and then claim that everyone else is crazy; or of weak mental health. Do you honestly believe this elitist tripe?

But when everyone else is clearly delusional, it's totally how irrelevant how elitist it is. And, may I add that the vast majority already discriminates against people who do not believe in a religion.

NOT TO SAY I think we should kill religious people. It may eventually get to the point that it is so obviosu that they are wrong, that we can count them out as delusional enough to warrant killing. And that day may be soon. Personally, I wish I could destroy religion, plain and simple. In a peaceful manner, of course, probably by disproving any disprovable claims the religion makes, which has pretty mcuh already happened. Religious people, not so much. My girlfriend is a fundie Baptist, and I'm totally fine with her.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Just don't go crying to the authorities when the vast majority of the population of the Earth discriminates against you for not believing in a religion.

No, why would I? If they had rational arguments (which they haven't) I would even consider taking it seriously. Until then, I can't help but wonder why I would have to justify not being member of a religion and thus expressing a love for freedom, autonomy, reason and human well-being. The fact that the vast majority of the world's population is targeted by my intolerance constitutes not so much an argument against my position as it constitutes an argument to do something about this state of humanity with highest priority.

If its okay for you, then everyone else should be allowed to do it too, right?

Yes. Why are you all talking about "allowing" things. I'm the last person on earth who would propose any kind of forceful or government-induced change in people's opinions.

I honestly do not see how one can look around themselves and see that they are in a very small minority, and then claim that everyone else is crazy; or of weak mental health.

How can I not? I hope you see that I am not judging a person as a whole based on their religiosity. It is only one aspect of many. Just as I may not be a proficient cook, religious people are not proficient at critical, consequent thinking or acting as autonomous individuals. And it just so happens that I consider the skills of thinking and autonomy to be much more important for a society than cooking skills. So important, in fact, that I think everyone should cultivate them, because it is one of the most basic of human actions.

Do you honestly believe this elitist tripe?

Yes, I do. As I said, this relates only to one aspect of being human, that which I consider supremely important: thinking. A religious person might be a good cook, musician, dancer, a hard worker or a very nice individual. None of this I consider as important as being able to think rationally and critically.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I honestly do not see how one can look around themselves and see that they are in a very small minority, and then claim that everyone else is crazy; or of weak mental health.

Yeah man, the majority is always right, isn't it. [ /sarcasm ]

I agree with your point very much. It is not fair to criticize things people cannot help – such as their appearance, race, social background or whatever (not that these things deserve criticism anyway). However, religion is what you believe, and you chose what you believe…. It is something you arrive at from your own thinking and reasoning (generally, unless you were indoctrinated and never questioned what you were told… which is just shameful). Therefore, religion is a choice; and just like political stance (for instance) it should not be ‘above’ being questioned and criticized by others.

If you were at a party and someone told you they were a Nazi, you’d be shocked. You’d say, ‘You really think that Jews are subhuman and we should kill them all? You really think that Negroes have smaller brains and thus aren’t worthy of rights? You really think we should make it illegal for people of different nationalities to marry?’ You probably wouldn’t say, ‘okay, cool. I respect that’ like you would if someone said they were a Muslim or a Christian. In this same respect we should challenge people (assuming it is acceptable to do so in the given situation…) over religion, and not simply let people talk what is (arguably…. Don’t want to cause any offense) highly contentious without challenging it.

Let’s face it; religion has a lot to answer for. If people are going to profess a set of beliefs which we might think are flawed, hypocritical, unnatural, discriminatory, et cetera…. We shouldn’t just sit back and respect it, we should challenge such things. People who profess these beliefs need to be prepared to defend them.

I agree with everything except that it is ok to discriminate for a job. Just because someone is religious does not mean they cant think critically in math or in a social situation. I think it is pretty rediculous to suggest that just because they are religious they cant think as clearly in a work place compared to a non religious person.

How then should we treat someone like that, without falling into the dangerous schemes of fascism or Social Darwinism?

This ruins your whole argument. Firstly, social darwinism is not bad, it was just associated with Eugenics and communism.

The point is that social darwinism is part of society. Lets look at capatilism, well their rich people and a wealthy middle class, and then poor people. We have a bunch of slaves making our chocolate and clothes, have you seen the children slaves sitting in factories.

Again, we survive because their is a bunch of slaves. Now, do you hear on the news about the chocolate we eat being produced by slaves.

To say we are not moral is not the truth. Social darwinism is basically capatalism, i.e. survival of the fittest. The rich get rich, and the poor become slaves.

It should definitely not be against the law to prefer a non-religious applicant to a religious one on the grounds that he is non-religious and thus more self-reliable and a more rational and critical thinker, more fit for the job.

I do not advocate treating religious people worse on a human level or using these arguments as a stepping stone towards some form of Social Darwinism.

This is stupid. Their is no evidence that atheist are more rational, the only difference is that atheist don't believe in god. Unless, their is a job that forces you to believe their is no god then your claim would be valid.

The only thing I would object to is someone who is a biologist who is working in evolution and does not believe in evolution and then starts to make up lies. Even then you don't see creationist lining up to get a degree in biology.

Social Darwinism. Seriously, not agreeing with someone is not social darwinism.

Originally Posted by wendylove

This ruins your whole argument. Firstly, social darwinism is not bad, it was just associated with Eugenics and communism.

Social Darwinism is the idea that Charles Darwin's theory can be extended and applied to the social domain, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest, competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.

I probably more hinted at eugenics. I still don't endorse Social Darwinism.

The point is that social darwinism is part of society. Lets look at capatilism, well their rich people and a wealthy middle class, and then poor people. We have a bunch of slaves making our chocolate and clothes, have you seen the children slaves sitting in factories.

Capitalism is not social darwinism but economic darwinism. However, the parallel is obvious, because economic success correlates very much with chance of survival and quality of life.
Are you a strong Capitalist? Because I am not.

To say we are not moral is not the truth. Social darwinism is basically capatalism, i.e. survival of the fittest. The rich get rich, and the poor become slaves.

And you assert that this is moral? To have people live in shitty conditions, so that a tiny elite can dine like Gods? Just because?

This is stupid. Their is no evidence that atheist are more rational, the only difference is that atheist don't believe in god. Unless, their is a job that forces you to believe their is no god then your claim would be valid.

For one, I would think that it's a really bad idea to elect religious people as politicians. I know most of you live in the U.S. and alternatives are rare, but being governed by a Christian really feels to me like sitting in an aircraft with a mentally challenged boy and his care worker as pilot and co-pilot. Even here in Germany, where there is a certain limit to Christian idiocy, our minister for education said that there are astonishing parallels between Creationism and Evolution and that, quite possibly, both should be taught.

Once you truly believe in something, it affects your opinion on related topics, your judgment of the world, your behavior and your emotional states. A belief is a representation of the world that is assumed to be true. You act according to it. Quite frankly, I think that the idea of "moderate religiosity" or "private beliefs" is just a big cover up for STILL accepting that people fall for idiotic proposals like that of the Christian Church.

Social Darwinism. Seriously, not agreeing with someone is not social darwinism.

Social Darwinism is the idea that Charles Darwin's theory can be extended and applied to the social domain, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest, competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.

You are wrong. I am not a proponent of Social Darwinism and I believe that rational discussion is the only way to go. Only because something that is fundamentally wrong (belief in the Christian God) gives you a higher chance of survival, shouldn't make this a desirable road for human evolution to take. Humans are actually capable of directing their own evolution and NOT succumbing to Darwinism.

you danced around the point about the jobs though. With the exception of evolution a creationist is every bit as capable as an athiest at math, science or anything else for that matter. Faith plays very little in to the decisions most people make outside of "Should I kill this person or should I talk it out?"

Social darwinism is false. Yes, intelligence, wealth, and all those damn things that define a citizen change civilisation and all. But smarter/wealthier peopel do not reproduce more - actually, it's quite the opposite. I call it reversed natural selection. I mean, who reproduces more today? Some ignorant person in a starving and dry condition at some ridiculously poor country, having like 20 children (hey, they got no TV).

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Social darwinism is false. Yes, intelligence, wealth, and all those damn things that define a citizen change civilisation and all. But smarter/wealthier peopel do not reproduce more - actually, it's quite the opposite. I call it reversed natural selection. I mean, who reproduces more today? Some ignorant person in a starving and dry condition at some ridiculously poor country, having like 20 children (hey, they got no TV).

QFT that be a provin fact!

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Social darwinism is false. Yes, intelligence, wealth, and all those damn things that define a citizen change civilisation and all. But smarter/wealthier peopel do not reproduce more - actually, it's quite the opposite. I call it reversed natural selection. I mean, who reproduces more today? Some ignorant person in a starving and dry condition at some ridiculously poor country, having like 20 children (hey, they got no TV).

Social darwinism has little to do with who reproduces and more to do with what ideas get spread throughout society. Social darwinism describes the evolution of ideas and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Yeah man, the majority is always right, isn't it. [ /sarcasm ]

As far as anyone is capable of being 'right,' yes. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but everything you believe to be right is actually consensus. There is no evidence of a higher truth beyond the accepted norm.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Social darwinism has little to do with who reproduces and more to do with what ideas get spread throughout society. Social darwinism describes the evolution of ideas and beliefs.

Um...no, Social Darwinism was the idea advanced in the early 20th century that some human populations are more evolved than others, specifically that blacks are closer to our simian ancestors. Of course, it makes about as much sense as saying dachsunds are more evolved than golden retrievers.

You're thhnking of meme theory, derived from Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

I don't think religious people have much room to talk when it comes to saying negative things about their beliefs. Especially Christians. I mean, they've been killing atheists for centuries. Now it's OUR turn. Well, not to kill so much as drag them into reality .

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As far as anyone is capable of being 'right,' yes. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but everything you believe to be right is actually consensus. There is no evidence of a higher truth beyond the accepted norm.

69% of the population of Sweden is athiest. Does that mean that the second a person steps into Sweden, they are wrong to be religious?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I honestly do not see how one can look around themselves and see that they are in a very small minority, and then claim that everyone else is crazy; or of weak mental health. Do you honestly believe this elitist tripe?

Atheists are not a small minority when you consider how many different contradictory religions there are. Or does just any irrational belief count to as being in the majority, and therefore right?

Being rational = elitist tripe.

Believing in magic, devils, witches = hey, everyone else is doing it--it must be right!

It seems obvious to me:

We are right and they are wrong! That's not the problem. The problem is what to do about the fear we have. This fear is due to a lack of power.

To really be effective judgement and condemnation need power!

We need to organize. We can draw up a set of rules, right ways of thinking, codes of conduct, exc... We need to start recruiting. Only when we are in the majority will we start to feel the effects of our power. As stated earlier in this thread, the larger our majority - the greater our power - the more accepted our judgement and condemnation will become.

Then the tables will turn!! We can instill fear instead of being fearfull. The % of our majority will confirm our "right-ness". We may have to use fear within our group to avoid some from defecting. Once we have world domination our only fear will be "the enemy within".

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I don't think religious people have much room to talk when it comes to saying negative things about their beliefs. Especially Christians. I mean, they've been killing atheists for centuries. Now it's OUR turn. Well, not to kill so much as drag them into reality .

Originally Posted by Stupified

It seems obvious to me:

We are right and they are wrong! That's not the problem. The problem is what to do about the fear we have. This fear is due to a lack of power.

To really be effective judgement and condemnation need power!

We need to organize. We can draw up a set of rules, right ways of thinking, codes of conduct, exc... We need to start recruiting. Only when we are in the majority will we start to feel the effects of our power. As stated earlier in this thread, the larger our majority - the greater our power - the more accepted our judgement and condemnation will become.

Then the tables will turn!! We can instill fear instead of being fearfull. The % of our majority will confirm our "right-ness". We may have to use fear within our group to avoid some from defecting. Once we have world domination our only fear will be "the enemy within".

And where would either of these motives or methods be any different than those of any contemporary religion? That being to band together to impose "our" influence or control over others.

What an irony , to free oneself, ones individuality, from the idea of a mass notion of a personal god standing in judgement over oneself, only to promptly create another mass organization to hand that new found individuality over to......

Originally Posted by Stupified

It seems obvious to me:

We are right and they are wrong! That's not the problem. The problem is what to do about the fear we have. This fear is due to a lack of power.

To really be effective judgement and condemnation need power!

We need to organize. We can draw up a set of rules, right ways of thinking, codes of conduct, exc... We need to start recruiting. Only when we are in the majority will we start to feel the effects of our power. As stated earlier in this thread, the larger our majority - the greater our power - the more accepted our judgement and condemnation will become.

Then the tables will turn!! We can instill fear instead of being fearfull. The % of our majority will confirm our "right-ness". We may have to use fear within our group to avoid some from defecting. Once we have world domination our only fear will be "the enemy within".

And we shall call it Maoist Communism.