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?

[JoeyKnothead]

1. Is it justifiable to be anti-religion based on the actions of some religious individuals or groups?

That's a bit too broad for me. I try to consider things kinda case by case. I've learned on this site that there's some really good theists I could sit to dinner with and not feel the least shamed for having done it.

Look for otseng, or tam for a coupe examples. They don't present a hateful god, even if their Christianity might wrongly indicate they're hateful folks.

I've also met more than one Jew on here who you couldn't tell to be hateful if you tried.

Then there's William, who has a very unique and nonjudgmental take on theism.

If we learn anything from this site, it's that religious beliefs are as varied as there are folks with em.

2. Does religion have a positive or negative impact on society as a whole?

In sum, negative. Here in "The land of the free", many Christians seek to restrict the rights and freedoms of folks who, best I can tell, just wanna live their lives best they know how.

3. Should religious beliefs have any influence on government policies and laws?

No. If someone thinks their god gets upset at something, they need to not do that something. This is epecially important now that there's this effort to kinda disappear the entire LGBTQ community. And that whole "God, and now me, we own the wimmins bodies".

4. Is it possible for a religious person to fully separate their beliefs from their actions and decision-making processes?

That might be asking too much, but we must conceed there's a good bunch of theists who don't wish to impose their beliefs on everybody else.

5. Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?

All publicly funded areas should be free from religious busybodyisms.

6. Does atheism have any negative effects on society and individual well-being?

Atheism is the position of non-belief in a god or gods.

Any negative affects would hafta come from some other notion.

7. Should religions be subject to the same level of scrutiny and criticism as any other ideology or belief system?

Most certainly.

8. Is it ethical to criticize or mock someone's religious beliefs, or is this a form of discrimination or disrespect?

There's a time and place, but I consider it my civic duty to mock and ridicule, poke fun and laugh at folks who'd use unfounded religious bigotry to oppress others.

9. Does religious indoctrination at a young age limit a person's ability to think critically and question their beliefs?

Not in all cases.

10. Can religion and science coexist, or are they fundamentally incompatible?

Not so much as coexist, as be employed by some theists to truly advance our understanding of the world.

11. Can I count on you to be with those who intend to keep Religion and State separate?

Separate, and not equal. If "goddidit" is the only answer, why bother asking the question?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

1. Is it justifiable to be anti-religion based on the actions of some religious individuals or groups?

The temptation may be understandable, but it's not justifiable to dismiss every Martin Luther King as just another Torquemada.

2. Does religion have a positive or negative impact on society as a whole?

Yes.

3. Should religious beliefs have any influence on government policies and laws?

In the voting booth, maybe. In legislation, absolutely not.

4. Is it possible for a religious person to fully separate their beliefs from their actions and decision-making processes?

Depends on the person and, maybe, on the religion. Sometimes such separation may not even be desirable.

5. Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?

Yes----as long as the prohibition does not extend to personally worn religious symbols.

6. Does atheism have any negative effects on society and individual well-being?

Someone who enjoyed listening to George Carlin and someone who lived in the Soviet Union might have different answers.

7. Should religions be subject to the same level of scrutiny and criticism as any other ideology or belief system?

Sure.

8. Is it ethical to criticize or mock someone's religious beliefs, or is this a form of discrimination or disrespect?

If it's done at all, disrespect is obviously the intention. Whether or not it's ethical might depend on what evoked it. It's definitely discrimination if it's done in the workplace.

And when done at the funeral of one of the target's loved ones, it's downright tacky.

9. Does religious indoctrination at a young age limit a person's ability to think critically and question their beliefs?

Any type of indoctrination at a young age limits a person's ability to think critically and question their beliefs.

10. Can religion and science coexist, or are they fundamentally incompatible?

"Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist."

"[T]here is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator."
— General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church

"[S]tudents' ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as 'scientific' will give them false ideas about scientific methods and criteria."
— Central Conference of American Rabbis

"Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained."
— Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Religion.

"In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul."
— Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Excerpted from his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 6).

https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolu ... d-religion

11. Can I count on you to be with those who intend to keep Religion and State separate?

Member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since 1998.

......but don't ask me to donate to your run for Congress----I get too many of those emails already.

[JoeyKnothead]

There's much rational and reasonable to be had in the full post, I just wanna get to this bit...

...

5. Should schools and public spaces be completely secular, without any religious influence or symbols?

Yes----as long as the prohibition does not extend to personally worn religious symbols.
...

I'd add that if personally worn religious symbols can be worn, in public schools, then any symbol should be allowed, as one's religious symbols are often another's symbols of hate.

If a Christian can wear their symbol of (considered) hate, then the Nazi must, in fairness, be allowed to wear theirs. Or how about a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed? How about a Jesus on the cross, and set alight?

Where does it end?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #4

Or how about a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed?

I'm not aware of that being a symbol of any religion.

one's religious symbols are often another's symbols of hate.

Thor's hammer and Norse runes have been stolen by white supremacists. Would you deny their rightful bearers the freedom to bear them because of that?

If a Christian can wear their symbol of (considered) hate, then the Nazi must, in fairness, be allowed to wear theirs.

Where does it end?

I find it a bit too convenient that you're drawing no distinction between any display of those symbols as an excuse to ban both.

[JoeyKnothead]

Or how about a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed?

I'm not aware of that being a symbol of any religion.

My point is that where we allow one symbol, fairness demands we allow all symbols, regardless of who is so proud they get to decide what constitutes acceptable symbols.

one's religious symbols are often another's symbols of hate.

Thor's hammer and Norse runes have been stolen by white supremacists.

Like those worn by the Christian Nationalist movement? Beyond that, do you have the deed to that hammer and them runes?

Do you deny that there's Christians who've killed in the name of their religion?

Would you deny their rightful bearers the freedom to bear them because of that?

My position here is predicated on the notion that certain "personal religious symbols" should be allowed in public schools, and the implication other symbols should be denied. I note you never mentioned denying other symbols, I'm just following the initial argument to a reasonable conclusion.

I contend that it's unfair to allow one symbol, but disallow another. Then there's the issue of who decides what is or ain't a "legitimate, wearable" symbol.

I'll head off the "if it causes controversy" argument right now, by pointing out so often the controversy is caused by theists who get upset by what others are or ain't wearing.

If a Christian can wear their symbol of (considered) hate, then the Nazi must, in fairness, be allowed to wear theirs.

Where does it end?

I find it a bit too convenient that you're drawing no distinction between any display of those symbols as an excuse to ban both.

I might find it 'convenient' that you fail to consider the ramifications of your position.

I reject the attempt to accuse me of using a "convenience" to argue my position, as I've obviously been advocating my position without resorting to trickery or other deviocities.

Who gets to decide that religious symbols are acceptable, while other symbols ain't? This is the kind of molly-coddling religious folks expect when it comes to their "sacred beliefs". In an equal society, a symbol is a symbol, regardless of how goofy a belief that symbol represents.

Many folks seem to have no problem with (personal) displays of religious symbols at public schools, while they'd wish to restrict other symbols.

What is so special about the religious symbol, that it should be allowed, at the cost of other symbols?

If the rhetorical you get to display a symbol of your choosing, I get to display a symbol of my choosing, up to and including on what part of my body or clothing I choose to put it.

If the Christian can wear their hateful cross in a public school, the Nazi has every right to wear their hateful version of that hateful cross. (I hate the Nazis, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your position)

Fair is fair, no matter how many tears it makes the baby Jesus cry.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #6

Who gets to decide that religious symbols are acceptable, while other symbols ain't?

I haven't been talking about other symbols; I'm focusing on religious ones since that's the area under discussion.

But since you're bringing other symbols into it, suppose that you're seen wearing your "atomic swirl" atheist symbol by someone whose great-great grandparents were sent to die in the soviet gulag and they determine that that's a hate symbol? Will you go quietly into the night and accept a ban on it in all public venues?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #6

Who gets to decide that religious symbols are acceptable, while other symbols ain't?

I haven't been talking about other symbols; I'm focusing on religious ones since that's the area under discussion.

You're not bringing them up, agreed. I bring them up as a matter of fairness.

But since you're bringing other symbols into it, suppose that you're seen wearing your "atomic swirl" atheist symbol by someone whose great-great grandparents were sent to die in the soviet gulag and they determine that that's a hate symbol? Will you go quietly into the night and accept a ban on it in all public venues?

Now we see the problem. If we allow certain symbols, by what right can we restrict others?

The Cross is okay?

What about a Calvin urinating on the cross?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #8

Now we see the problem. If we allow certain symbols, by what right can we restrict others?

The Cross is okay?

Your argument seems to be, "How can we tolerate anyone wearing a cross when the Klan has burned crosses on lawns? That makes all cross-wearers the same, doesn't it?"

If you wear the aforementioned atheism symbol in front of someone who lost family in the soviet gulag, are you guilty of a hate crime?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #8

Now we see the problem. If we allow certain symbols, by what right can we restrict others?

The Cross is okay?

Your argument seems to be, "How can we tolerate anyone wearing a cross when the Klan has burned crosses on lawns? That makes all cross-wearers the same, doesn't it?"

If you wear the aforementioned atheism symbol in front of someone who lost family in the soviet gulag, are you guilty of a hate crime?

You're asking the wrong questions.

My point is that where you'd accept someone wearing a personal religious symbol in public schools, then what symbols are not worthy of the same permission, and why?

Who gets to decide what symbol is allowed, and what symbols ain't?

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