What religious people really believe

[2xx1xy1JD]

I thought this Huffington Post piece was interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-ala ... 40894.html

One phenomenon that I find frustrating goes something like this:

Fundie: We represent the One True Way. All these moderates aren't really True Believers, and just do things out of convenience. Real True Believers do [laundry list of objectionable stuff].

Former fundie-turned-atheist: [Laundry list of objectionable stuff] is really bad. Since this bad stuff is promoted by religion, religion must be bad. Those who say otherwise are just apologists or aren't really following what their religion says.

Their last fundie belief to go often seems to be that only the extreme fundies are True Believers.

This article reminded me of August's comment that all religions impair moral reasoning.

[debrand]

I thought this Huffington Post piece was interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-ala ... 40894.html

One phenomenon that I find frustrating goes something like this:

Fundie: We represent the One True Way. All these moderates aren't really True Believers, and just do things out of convenience. Real True Believers do [laundry list of objectionable stuff].

Former fundie-turned-atheist: [Laundry list of objectionable stuff] is really bad. Since this bad stuff is promoted by religion, religion must be bad. Those who say otherwise are just apologists or aren't really following what their religion says.

Their last fundie belief to go often seems to be that only the extreme fundies are True Believers.

This article reminded me of August's comment that all religions impair moral reasoning.

I'm a fundie turned atheist and I don't think that all religion is bad just illogical.

Interesting study. I just wish that religious people would speak up more often against the fundamentalists.

While 92 percent said that they believe in "God or a Universal Spirit," less than 68 percent professed a belief in a "theistic" God -- a Creator who is intimately involved in our lives.

67 percent believe that their tradition's Holy Books are not meant to be read literally. This number is much higher for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and non-evangelical Protestants.

Only 24 percent of respondents claim that their religion is the one true faith.

Only 29 percent said that they look primarilly to religious teachings and belief most for guidance. The rest answered that they look to personal experience, reason and science for guidance.

68 percent of all the religious people surveyed answered that there is more than one way to understand the teaching of their faith, including 89 percent of Jews and 82 percent of mainline Christians and non-evangelical Protestants.

An average of 76 percent of religious people across different faiths responded that they see no conflict between religion and science, even for the most devout in their faith.

79 percent of Jews, 69 percent of non-denominations Christians and 58 percent of Catholics agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society.

In every category of religion, the majority of the respondents supported governmental help for the needy -- even if this means incurring more debt -- with a blended total of 62 percent.

[2xx1xy1JD]

You're right, I shouldn't generalize. You don't do this.

SOME former fundies do. Not all.

[debrand]

You're right, I shouldn't generalize. You don't do this.

SOME former fundies do. Not all.

It seems to be that people who are jerks remain jerks regardless of whether they go from no religion to believing or back the other way. (Hopefully, that makes sense)

[2xx1xy1JD]

I wouldn't automatically call these former fundies jerks.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali could fall into this category, but she's not a jerk. I don't think that all of the OTD (ex-Orthodox Jewish) bloggers are jerks, although a few are.

I've gotten into debates, though, that are really about each of us saying "this was the reality of my life". If someone has always been taught that God is a certain way, and demands certain things, and has heard umpteen different passages quoted to support this, then it's natural for them for reject their religion, and often the whole notion of God, as contributing to Bad Things. It's hard to picture a whole different religious reality existing, when you've never experienced it and when you've been taught a very distorted version of what it is all about.

[Dysfundamental]

I'm a fundie turned atheist and I don't think that all religion is bad just illogical.

Interesting study. I just wish that religious people would speak up more often against the fundamentalists.

That happens all the time, but it doesn't make headlines. The head of the [link=https://www.au.org/about/people/lynn]biggest US secularism lobby[/link] is a UCC minister, for instance. The US media narrative that anti-fundamentalism is primarily an atheist position is toxic IMO, so I think this HuffPo piece is timely.

[Rachel333]

Why does believing that all religion is bad make you a jerk? As long as you don't also believe that all religious people are bad, I don't see the problem.

[yewchapel]

Because religion is not a sentient being and cannot do bad (or good) things by itself. It needs people to be bad or good. It makes as much sense as saying all money is bad or all government is bad.

[Rachel333]

Because religion is not a sentient being and cannot do bad (or good) things by itself. It needs people to be bad or good. It makes as much sense as saying all money is bad or all government is bad.

I don't think that really makes sense. People say stuff like that all the time. "Democracy is good", "Communism is bad", "capitalism is bad." A bit simplistic, probably, but that's not the issue. What about "religious fundamentalism is bad"? Same issue there, but I think that's where I stand. I don't think all fundamentalists are bad people, but I do think fundamentalism is bad. To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

[singsingsing]

I don't think that really makes sense. People say stuff like that all the time. "Democracy is good", "Communism is bad", "capitalism is bad." A bit simplistic, probably, but that's not the issue. What about "religious fundamentalism is bad"? Same issue there, but I think that's where I stand. I don't think all fundamentalists are bad people, but I do think fundamentalism is bad. To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Religion is not a sentient sinister force that can magically make 'good people' do evil deeds... and it's certainly not the only motivation behind the evil done by people who were considered 'good' by their friends/neighbours/community beforehand.

[debrand]

I worded my statement poorly. If a person is a jerk, chances are it won't matter if they become an atheist or a Christian, they will still remain an ass. That is all I meant.

[Arete]

To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

That quote always makes me want to slap myself. Atheists have way too high an opinion of themselves and the human race in general if they think good people are somehow immune from doing really evil things just because they do not follow a religion.

[Rachel333]

That quote always makes me want to slap myself. Atheists have way too high an opinion of themselves and the human race in general if they think good people are somehow immune from doing really evil things just because they do not follow a religion.

It is a bit too reddit atheist, isn't it. :lol: I'd agree with you there, but I just wanted to get across that I do see a difference between thinking religion is bad and thinking religious people are bad.

[lizziesmom]

Why does believing that all religion is bad make you a jerk? As long as you don't also believe that all religious people are bad, I don't see the problem.

Some see that as impossible. It's like saying I support the troops but I don't support the war(s). If you don't support both, you're unpatriotic.

[yewchapel]

More like saying 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.

[yewchapel]

I don't think that really makes sense. People say stuff like that all the time. "Democracy is good", "Communism is bad", "capitalism is bad." A bit simplistic, probably, but that's not the issue. What about "religious fundamentalism is bad"? Same issue there, but I think that's where I stand. I don't think all fundamentalists are bad people, but I do think fundamentalism is bad. To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

People may say things like 'democracy is good' but that doesn't make it any more accurate than 'religion is bad'. Political systems are also not sentient beings and cannot be bad or good in themselves. As for religious fundamentalism, define what you mean by that? Even on this board, 'fundie' varies in definition.

Also, to suggest that religion is the only thing that inspires 'good' people to do bad things (I believe in good and bad actions not good and bad people) is seriously ignorant.

[Rachel333]

People may say things like 'democracy is good' but that doesn't make it any more accurate than 'religion is bad'. Political systems are also not sentient beings and cannot be bad or good in themselves. As for religious fundamentalism, define what you mean by that? Even on this board, 'fundie' varies in definition.

Also, to suggest that religion is the only thing that inspires 'good' people to do bad things (I believe in good and bad actions not good and bad people) is seriously ignorant.

Anddddd, the accuracy of those statements is not the point. What I was trying to say in the first place is that I don't think that believing religion is bad makes someone a bad person (and you say you don't believe in bad people anyway :) ).

I think it's really odd to not be able to separate the person and their beliefs at all, and I think the inability to do so causes a lot of problems. I don't like the Republican party. There are, however, a lot of Republicans I like and respect. I appreciate the people in my life who feel the same way about me despite thinking my political beliefs are wrong. It's difficult to get along with the people who think that liberalism is terrible, therefore so are all liberals.

Back along religious lines, I'm also an atheist, which is something I don't share with a lot of people in real life because they can't separate "atheism is bad" from "atheists are bad people", but I do know some who know I'm an atheist, think atheism is bad, and yet still like and respect me. Similarly, I think a lot of their beliefs are bad (I don't think "bad" is a great word for this, actually, and it's not the one I would choose normally), but I like and respect them and think they do a lot of good things.

I probably wouldn't say "religion is bad", for the record; I don't think it's quite that simple. I also don't think that people who would say that are jerks. Regarding that quote, no, I don't think that religion is the only thing that can get good people to do bad things (or people who mostly do good things to do bad things, if you like). (I did actually think as I was posting that I should be more clear about what I liked and disliked about the quote, but I was being lazy.) What I did like about that quote was that he differentiates religious people and the religion they follow. He's clearly very anti-religion, but he doesn't think all religious people are bad like some anti-religion atheists seem to.

I know I've met with quite a bit of disagreement on this topic here before. :lol: I don't think that a lot of the fundies we talk about here are necessarily bad people even if their beliefs are pretty awful, and saying that really upsets some people here. I just don't think people are that simple, though.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I dunno, I can see where I think Rachel33 is maybe coming from.

It seems to me that religion is very often put into a special category, where people don't want to take or assign responsibility for it as a set of opinions they way they would treat any other collection of opinions.

You can see it in current fundies who will say things along the line of "Me, bigoted? No, I'm just following God's word, if you don't like it you have to take it up with Him."

But you can also see it in the wider more or less secular world too, when people imply that being forthright about not believing in someone's religion, or saying right out that you think their religion is complete nonsense is somehow far worse than saying that you think Republicanism is a crock - even if you're more than willing to say the usual "but you're free to believe whatever you want, there should be no persecution of anyone" etc. As such it's polite to be agnostic, but not so much to just admit to being an atheist, because then you're denying someone's religion and well that's just beyond the pale. The idea that religion is a choice already offends a lot of people.

And where the kicker comes in is, if religious person A says religious person B's religion is nonsense, he can get a pass because hey, he's following his God, you don't like it, take it up with God, again. And they can fall back on niceties of rationalizing how surely somehow it's the same God, they just see him differently or whatever platitudes, a lot of the time. But an atheist admitting to religious person B that he thinks the religion is a nonsense, somehow it's just beyond rude. Admitting that you find the idea of any supernatural things nonsense, that just compounds it, you get labelled as smug and whatever else. Because you think you know it all - as if the religious people aren't saying the same thing? But they're not, quite - again, they can fall back on "God says..."

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't think that really makes sense. People say stuff like that all the time. "Democracy is good", "Communism is bad", "capitalism is bad." A bit simplistic, probably, but that's not the issue. What about "religious fundamentalism is bad"? Same issue there, but I think that's where I stand. I don't think all fundamentalists are bad people, but I do think fundamentalism is bad. To quote Steven Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

That quote is bullshit. It gets passed around a lot because it rings true to people - until you actually stop and think it through.

Here's why:

1. How on earth are we defining good people and bad people, if we aren't identifying them by their actions? How is a bad person doing evil different from a good person doing evil?

2. This quote is suggesting that the ONLY reason that good people would do evil would be religion. Bullshit. Here's a small list of other things that have triggered otherwise normal people to do bad things:

- sports riots

- drugs or alcohol

- political demonstrations

- war

- overwhelming political ideology that demonizes or dehumanizes certain groups (class enemies, other ethnic groups, etc.)

- fear (torture is bad...but not if you are hunting terrorists)

Many people involved in these things seemed perfectly normal before, and many will act like normal human beings afterward. If you believe that people who do bad things will always come across as monsters, that's a dangerous myth.

3. It probably more accurate to say that most people will do what most people around them are doing, most of the time. It's outlier behavior to either do evil when folks around you are being good, OR to be good when the society around you is demanding evil. Moral outliers may be shaped by internal factors (mental illness, being unusually stubborn or rebellious, being unusually principled) or ideologies. Religions is just one of those ideologies.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Why does believing that all religion is bad make you a jerk? As long as you don't also believe that all religious people are bad, I don't see the problem.

It's bad because it is a blanket statement.

Saying ALL religion is bad is very different from saying that SOME religious beliefs are bad, or that religion has the potential to be bad.

I'm suggesting that many of those who declare that all religion is bad have likely never really done a seriously study of every single religion on the planet, including all of the movements and sects within each religion, nor it is likely that they have studied the impact of every single religion on every single believer.

[formergothardite]

I think that some religions teach bad things like hell for those who don't believe like them and patriarchy. I feel like those sort of teachings do negatively impact a society. But then there are plenty of religions that don't teach those things(even versions of Christianity) and encourage followers to show love to everyone and help out people, so not all religions are bad, it is just that the bad ones make the most noise.

[debrand]

What an interesting thread. There are points that I agree and disagree with everyone of the individual posts. This is why I come on this forum. The discussion is not one sided and often delves into complex issues without trying to discover a black/white line of right or wrong.

As human beings we tend to want to divide ourselves into groups of us and them. It is easy to be afraid of 'them' and imagine that they are the ones causing all the problems and our side is good. That isn't how the world works, of course. Any belief system that leads people to separate groups into us versus will potentially lead to its adherents hurting outsiders. Historically, the idea of a god has been used to put people into groups or frighten people into hating certain populations but any system that believes right is completely on its side is dangerous. Perhaps a good example would be extreme nationalism or extreme patriotism.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re atheists and comments re religion:

I see a difference between saying "I don't believe in X" vs. "your religion is bad/wrong".

The first is a personal belief (or lack thereof). Most people that I know would accept that, and those who didn't could be considered rude/pushy.

The second is an attack on another person's belief. There may be situations where this is justified (eg. I will engage in anti-corporal punishment debates with some Christians), or where a particular belief needs to be discussed, but it's thornier. If you tell someone that they are wrong, you can expect some push-back. This may be a matter of personal style, but I generally won't go around trashing someone else's beliefs unless there is a pretty specific reason to do so. I mean, it's obvious from the fact that I'm Jewish that I don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, or Mohammed as the latest-and-greatest prophet, but I don't see it as my business to tell Christians and Muslims that they are wrong. If someone asks about my beliefs, I'll discuss them, or if I'm on a religious discussion board, it may be appropriate, but otherwise, it's not for me to tell someone else that they are right or wrong for having their faith. When I do challenge a particular belief, I generally don't challenge the rest of the religion. IME, for example, an evangelical Christian will find it easier to consider that the rod in Proverbs in allegorical and that "training" doesn't mean hitting babies with plumbing line, than to consider their entire religion is false. Similarly, a Muslim may find it easier to reject a particularly offensive hadith or a particular interpretation of a Quranic verse than to reject their entire religion.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

But if someone asks me if I believe in the central mystical part of their religion, straight up (and they have) I feel no particular need to sugarcoat the fact that no, I don't believe in it, it seems outlandish to me even. Yes, that inevitably implies that I feel the other person is believing in something unreal. And yes, people don't like to hear it, but then they don't have to ask me.

They're always free to reconsider their own beliefs and change them. (But merely saying that, some people find offensive as well.)

I've had bad experiences with missionaries. I am not going to give them any "oh, but they meant well, they're sincere believing NICE PEOPLE" considerations that they don't give me in return.

[2xx1xy1JD]

But if someone asks me if I believe in the central mystical part of their religion, straight up (and they have) I feel no particular need to sugarcoat the fact that no, I don't believe in it, it seems outlandish to me even. Yes, that inevitably implies that I feel the other person is believing in something unreal. And yes, people don't like to hear it, but then they don't have to ask me.

They're always free to reconsider their own beliefs and change them. (But merely saying that, some people find offensive as well.)

I've had bad experiences with missionaries. I am not going to give them any "oh, but they meant well, they're sincere believing NICE PEOPLE" considerations that they don't give me in return.

Hey, if someone initiates the conversation, they are putting the issue on the table. That's different from setting out to tell someone else how or how not to believe.