Why I am Anti-Religion

[boatsnguitars]

Anyone who knows me, knows I am not fond of religion. I have many reasons, but my main focus is two-fold:
The bigotry
The Irrationality

How, you might ask, does that manifest in our lives, through religion?

Religion has been a significant contributor to promoting bigotry, anti-scientific beliefs, and flawed reasoning, as shown by multiple studies and polls. While individuals have the freedom to discuss their beliefs, it is not acceptable to elevate these beliefs to the status of laws or to impose them on others. Therefore, a secular government, which is based on rational and evidence-based decision-making, is superior to a religious one.

Studies have found that religiosity can be a significant predictor of negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community and a rejection of scientific consensus. A Pew Research Center poll in 2020 found that only 34% of white evangelical Protestants in the US supported same-sex marriage, while 57% of Catholics and 68% of mainline Protestants supported it. Additionally, a 2018 study published in the Journal of Homosexuality found that religiosity was negatively associated with attitudes towards same-sex marriage among young adults.

Moreover, religious beliefs have been shown to influence attitudes towards science. A 2015 Pew Research Center survey found that 36% of US adults rejected the theory of evolution, with the highest percentage of rejection coming from those who identify as evangelical Protestants. Additionally, a 2018 study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science found that individuals who have higher religiosity tend to have more negative attitudes towards science.

Furthermore, research has found that religiosity can be associated with a decreased ability to think critically and engage in analytical thinking. A 2012 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology found that analytic thinking could reduce religious belief, as participants who engaged in analytical thinking were less likely to endorse religious belief. Additionally, a 2013 study published in Cognitive Science found that participants who were asked to consider a religious prime before completing a task performed worse than those who were not primed with religious concepts.

Moreover, research has also shown that religious individuals are more likely to rely on intuitive thinking rather than analytical thinking. A 2015 study published in Personality and Social Psychology Review found that religious individuals are more likely to rely on their gut instincts when making decisions, rather than engaging in analytical thinking.

These studies and polls demonstrate that religion can be a significant contributor to promoting bigotry, anti-scientific beliefs, and flawed reasoning. In contrast, a secular government is based on rational and evidence-based decision-making, ensuring that policies and laws are grounded in sound logic and evidence. A secular government also respects everyone's rights and freedoms, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Moreover, a secular government is essential for ensuring equal treatment and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their religion. In a religious government, laws and policies are often influenced by religious beliefs, which can lead to discrimination against minority groups and violations of human rights. A secular government ensures that policies and laws are based on a universal set of principles that apply to all citizens equally.

In conclusion, multiple studies and polls have found that religiosity can be a significant predictor of negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community and a rejection of scientific consensus. Additionally, religiosity has been associated with a decreased ability to engage in critical thinking and rely more on intuition, which can potentially lead to an increased susceptibility to fallacious thinking and beliefs. Therefore, it is essential to promote evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking to ensure that our beliefs and decisions.

I will add that it is common for religious people to sheepishly (cowardly) say things like, "The fool says in his heart there is no God" or "Homosexuality is an abomination" or other such clear insults, but when called on it, they immediately retreat and say, "Hey, it's not me saying it! It's God! You think you know better than God!?"
This is the cowards way.

One study published in the journal Social Neuroscience in 2016 found that when religious individuals were asked to evaluate religious statements, they used the same part of their brain used when evaluating their own beliefs, rather than the part of the brain used when evaluating the beliefs of others. The study also found that the more religious a person was, the more likely they were to use this same part of the brain when evaluating religious statements.

Another study published in the journal Psychological Science in 2009 found that when religious individuals were asked to evaluate moral dilemmas, they used the same part of their brain used when evaluating their own moral beliefs, rather than the part of the brain used when evaluating the moral beliefs of others. The study also found that the more religious a person was, the more likely they were to use this same part of the brain when evaluating moral dilemmas.

These studies suggest that when people speak for God, they may be projecting their own beliefs and values onto God, rather than representing the beliefs and values of an external entity. This could contribute to the tendency for religious individuals to be less critical of their own beliefs and more likely to reject opposing viewpoints.

In a democracy, where a person with strong religious feelings has an equal vote to someone who tries to think of others, it becomes dangerous. It becomes Iran, or the Taliban, or much of Europe while Christians were in charge during the Dark Ages, Black Plague, inquisition, etc.

There is no indication religious people are going away, or that they will stop trying to impose their beliefs on all of us. The Separation of Church and State is for the protection of both, but many religious people don't see it that way. They have convinced themselves that their feelings are God's feelings and they feel a need to act. Meanwhile, well meaning people will vote to allow religious people to speak out, not realizing the wolves of religion are there to take every inch and turn it into a mile.
Evolution, Homosexuality, Abortion (and sex education) - these are all debates that would be easy to discuss if not for zealots that need to impose their feelings on the rest of us.

That is why I can't let up. I am the son, brother, father to someone who has been affected by religious bigotry. We all are. It's not going to stop, but I'll be damned if I won't try to slow it in any way I can. That's why i come to forums like this (if someone asks). I know religious people are lost in their ego and will never change, but I will remind them that they still have a long way to go before they think they've won.

And I will remind them through the tools at my disposal. Logic, reason, mockery and, yes, at times, rage. However, I will never threaten - though I wish many of the worst painful death (like ISIS, or Ugandan Christians who just passed the death penalty for homosexuality), I certainly won't threaten that my "Father" is going to torture them forever - hey, it's not me that says it's my "Dad!".....


Debate questions:

1. Is it justifiable to be anti-religion based on the actions of some religious individuals or groups?
2. Does religion have a positive or negative impact on society as a whole?
3. Should religious beliefs have any influence on government policies and laws?
4. Is it possible for a religious person to fully separate their beliefs from their actions and decision-making processes?
5. Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?
6. Does atheism have any negative effects on society and individual well-being?
7. Should religions be subject to the same level of scrutiny and criticism as any other ideology or belief system?
8. Is it ethical to criticize or mock someone's religious beliefs, or is this a form of discrimination or disrespect?
9. Does religious indoctrination at a young age limit a person's ability to think critically and question their beliefs?
10. Can religion and science coexist, or are they fundamentally incompatible?
11. Can I count on you to be with those who intend to keep Religion and State separate?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #10

My position is that to allow the one, fairness dictates we allow them all.

You mean like....

a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed?

No.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #10

My position is that to allow the one, fairness dictates we allow them all.

You mean like....

a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed?

No.

So we see, you accept religious symbols, while you reject other symbols.

That's what I've been getting at. We've been conditioned to accept religious symbols as somehow better than other symbols.

I don't consider any symbol superior to any other symbol, and seek fairness when we allow the theist to parade the symbols of their beliefs, as they seek to silence the symbols belonging to the beliefs of others.

[JoeyKnothead]

Why I am anti-religion...

Preachers as school counselors

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #10

My position is that to allow the one, fairness dictates we allow them all.

You mean like....

a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed?

No.

So we see, you accept religious symbols, while you reject other symbols.

That's what I've been getting at. We've been conditioned to accept religious symbols as somehow better than other symbols.

I don't consider any symbol superior to any other symbol, and seek fairness when we allow the theist to parade the symbols of their beliefs, as they seek to silence the symbols belonging to the beliefs of others.

Joey..........sit down, put your head under a bucket & take a think about what you just wrote.

You brought up the image of someone in cross hairs and I rejected it outright. Why do you think I did so? Because it's "not a religious symbol"? It's objectionable, Joey, because it's a violent symbol. It suggests doing harm to someone. It's not a symbol "belonging to the beliefs of others"----it's a threat. I don't know how I can make it any more plain.


WHERE have I said ANYTHING in favor of restricting the personal display of ANYONE'S BELIEFS???

[JoeyKnothead]

Joey..........sit down, put your head under a bucket & take a think about what you just wrote.

I present examples merely to prove a point.

You brought up the image of someone in cross hairs and I rejected it outright. Why do you think I did so? Because it's "not a religious symbol"? It's objectionable, Joey, because it's a violent symbol. It suggests doing harm to someone. It's not a symbol "belonging to the beliefs of others"----it's a threat. I don't know how I can make it any more plain.

And what I'm saying is that some folks consider religious symbols to be just as offensive or dangerous.

Beyond that, how does being religious symbol somehow negate any other symbol?

WHERE have I said ANYTHING in favor of restricting the personal display of ANYONE'S BELIEFS???

I speak more rhetorical with "you", and will try to be more clear in the future.

My point though, is that fairness means we don't favor one's symbols just because of the religious nature of them. (As relates to the prior public school angle)

[bjs1]

And what I'm saying is that some folks consider religious symbols to be just as offensive or dangerous.

If we go down this road then it would seem that any symbol, any picture, perhaps any color could be offensive to someone. If someone finds penguins offensive should pictures of them be banned? So, as far as I can tell, we are left with two options.

Option 1: School uniforms, required for all students, with no symbols, pictures or individuality of any kind.

Option 2: Overall freedom of personal expression with the expectation that reasonable people can understand the difference between an expression of belief or opinion versus a threat of violence against another person.

[bjs1]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

1. Is it justifiable to be anti-religion based on the actions of some religious individuals or groups?
No. Stalin and Moa (and their supporters) persecuted, imprisoned, and executed millions of religious people. They openly stated that they were doing so to spread atheism and reduce religion in the world. If an atheist does not want to be judged based on their actions, then he should not judge religious people based on the actions of some individuals or groups.

2. Does religion have a positive or negative impact on society as a whole?
Both. We can’t separate religion – specifically Christianity – from Western culture. Christianity gets a little bit of the blame for everything we have done wrong and a little bit of the credit for everything that we have done right.

3. Should religious beliefs have any influence on government policies and laws?
It depends on what you mean. The church should not directly influence government policy, but all people (including religious people) should vote according to their conscience and worldview.

4. Is it possible for a religious person to fully separate their beliefs from their actions and decision-making processes?
No. Nor is it possible for an atheist to fully separate his beliefs from his actions and decision-making processes.

5. Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?
No. School curriculum should not teach any religion or lack of religion as correct, but students do not give up their basic civil rights when they enter the classroom.

6. Does atheism have any negative effects on society and individual well-being?
Yes. Many, many studies have shown that atheists have increased stress, shorter lives, less happiness, and worse mental and physical health than Christians.

7. Should religions be subject to the same level of scrutiny and criticism as any other ideology or belief system?
Yes, all ideologies and beliefs systems should be scrutinized.

8. Is it ethical to criticize or mock someone's religious beliefs, or is this a form of discrimination or disrespect?
Criticize, yes. Mock, no. It is inherently disrespectful to mock other people’s deeply held beliefs. Most people can disagree with someone and maintain basic civility.

9. Does religious indoctrination at a young age limit a person's ability to think critically and question their beliefs?
No. Studies have shown that people raised in religious households are likely to maintain the beliefs of their parents. At the same time, people raised in non-religious or nominally religious households are equally likely to maintain the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of their parents.

To put this another way, if a religious upbringing limits a person’s ability to think critically then a non-religious upbringing equally limits a person’s ability to think critically.

Also, most people are able to separate actual indoctrination for basic parenting.

10. Can religion and science coexist, or are they fundamentally incompatible?
Yes. A 2009 survey by Pew Research found that roughly half of scientists are religious or believe in higher power of some kind. While that is notably lower than the population overall, it still shows that religion and science coexist in a reasonably high percentage of scientists.

11. Can I count on you to be with those who intend to keep Religion and State separate?
The better questions is: Can I count on you to be keep religion and State separate? Most Christians support the separation of Church and State. It is more often atheists who want to break down that wall to give the State more power over the Church.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #15

And what I'm saying is that some folks consider religious symbols to be just as offensive or dangerous.

Does that mean you would sympathize with the one who lost family in the soviet gulag considering the atomic swirl symbol just as offensive or dangerous?

Beyond that, how does being religious symbol somehow negate any other symbol?

Where did I suggest that they do?

My point though, is that fairness means we don't favor one's symbols just because of the religious nature of them. (As relates to the prior public school angle)

The question under discussion is, "Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?" My response was that such restriction should not extend to religious symbols which individuals in those spaces wear on their persons.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting secular symbols. The question ISN'T EVEN ABOUT secular symbols. It's about religious symbols, so that's what I was addressing.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #15

And what I'm saying is that some folks consider religious symbols to be just as offensive or dangerous.

Does that mean you would sympathize with the one who lost family in the soviet gulag considering the atomic swirl symbol just as offensive or dangerous?

Yes.

My point here is who gets to decide one symbol is acceptable, but another is not. Who makes that decision? I propose fairness dictates a come one, come all approach (in the absence of a total ban).


... Snip...

My point though, is that fairness means we don't favor one's symbols just because of the religious nature of them. (As relates to the prior public school angle)

The question under discussion is, "Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?" My response was that such restriction should not extend to religious symbols which individuals in those spaces wear on their persons.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting secular symbols. The question ISN'T EVEN ABOUT secular symbols. It's about religious symbols, so that's what I was addressing.

For sure, your response was a reasonable take.

I continue the line of thought, but reduce it down to any symbol.

So, extending your thought, I propose that allowing a symbol, religious or not, opens up the question of fairness. If we allow one, fairness dictates we allow all - even symbols considered "inappropriate" by the religious folks among us.

By no means am I trying to say you've said we shouldn't allow others, I'm just saying...

[JoeyKnothead]

Take the books out, put the commandments in?

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-to-take- ... D=ref_fark

It's almost comical how Christians hafta coerce people through force of law.