Which religion do you dislike most?

[No1Mensan]

I've noticed that a lot of the big guns are becoming more anti-islam of late. I started this poll to see where people stand on this.

I've put Christianity for two reasons,

1 The Bible is nothing short of shocking as a moral guide
2 People have been ramming it down my throat all through school

 

[ExplorerAtHeart]

Well, Christianity has been more prominate in my life due to location and such. But i voted Islam because its doctrine allows and even encourages violence against "infidels". They are also encouraged to spread their religion through conquest.

 

[Gnug215]

This was a tough choice, actually.

I agree with your points about Christianity, No1Mensan, but I also feel that Christianity scores some positive points with all the moderate versions, and adherents, of it. It's more integrated in our western society than Islam is, so it's not as much at odds with it. Americans might have a slightly different take on this to some extent... except for the terrorism stuff.

To me, it feels like Christianity has to a large extent been dragged (kicking and screaming) into the.... at least 19th-20th century, while Islam generally seems to be lagging behind in that regard. These are of course gross generalizations, but that's what we have to go by, since both of them are quite diverse. Islam seems more old-fashioned, though, and more traditionalist. Some Christians are that, too, but those are often considered the extremists and fundamentalists of the religion.

I am, however, spending more time "combating" Christians, but that's because I know them better (having been one myself), and that's the people I tend to run into. Besides, creationism is about equally stupid whether it's being served by Christians or Muslims.

 

[alimck]

I say Christianity at the moment. It's the one I know most about so I am more ready to say why I dislike it more than I am with Islam.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Well, Christianity has been more prominate in my life due to location and such. But i voted Islam because its doctrine allows and even encourages violence against "infidels". They are also encouraged to spread their religion through conquest.

You kind of need to define doctrine. The Bible prescribes death for apostates also in Deut 13: 6-11

Their books are equally reprehensible. The difference as I see it is that Christian practice has been "subverted" so to speak by western liberalist philosophy while Islam has managed to remain pretty insulated, and so remains in the bronze age as far as ethics are concerned. I think it is a cultural phenomenon as much as it is a religious one.

 

[Unwardil]

Iron age. Fair's fair, Islam didn't exist during the bronze age. Neither Christianity for that matter. The fact that a lot of their teachings and doctrines appear to be remarkably close to those of religions which did exist during the bronze age is beside the point.

 

[Aught3]

I chose Islam for it's effect on the world. One recent example, Sharia is starting to be enforced in Aceh, Indonesia with police officers now pulling over women on scooters and telling them to change from jeans into skirts. It's crap like this that makes me dislike Islam the most.

Imah, 40, a housewife, was enraged when the sharia police stopped her while she was riding a motorbike and asked her to change into a skirt. "Are jeans forbidden by religion?" she asked.

Yes, yes they are.

 

[Deleted member 619]

For me, it isn't actually religion in and of itself that is the problem, but the blind adherence to doctrinal imperative, of which religion is merely a subset. Anything rooted in 'accept my blind assertions without criticism' is to be loathed and indeed eradicated. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed. That is my raison d'etre, and the motivation behind almost every word I post on the net. Since all religions are equally bad ideas, I have no preference. They're all fucking stupid.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I've noticed that a lot of the big guns are becoming more anti-islam of late. I started this poll to see where people stand on this.

I've put Christianity for two reasons,

1 The Bible is nothing short of shocking as a moral guide
2 People have been ramming it down my throat all through school

Christianity isn't NEARLY as bad, simply because there is almost no where in the world that practices the exact morality found in the Christian revelation. I can't name one christian nation that stones people for the things people get stoned for in the old testament, or even legislates about shellfish or pork or even meat on fridays. Meanwhile, there are dozens of countries that institute strict sharia law, requiring people to be beaten for this or that, or have their hands cut off for stealing, or requires women to wear certain clothes.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Well, Christianity has been more prominate in my life due to location and such. But i voted Islam because its doctrine allows and even encourages violence against "infidels". They are also encouraged to spread their religion through conquest.

Christianity isn't much better in scripture. Some cultural pressures have tamed the fringe down over time.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well I hope no one's forgetting the 500-600 year gap in science and knowledge, actually pushing mankind into pre-Greek living conditions, and quite a number of deaths in the inquisition and just random witch-hunts forced upon alot of free-thinkers and a few Europian Pagans who refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Protestant-Catholic wars that killed off quite a lot of people.

Oh. Let's not forget the Crusades either.

Shit, if the doctor didn't prescribe me Loritabs this post would be filled with alot more examples (and be better written, unfortunately).

 

[Worldquest]

Fundamentalist atheism. Not to be confused with regular, run of the mill atheism, which is harmless.

 

[Aught3]

Fundamentalism refers to a strict adherence to a particular set of principles (often found in an ancient text). Atheism does not have any principles (nor a book to follow) so cannot be fundamentalist. The active and vocal proponents of atheism and rationality (if you insist on religious terminology) I would call evangelical atheists.

 

[Ibis3]

I picked Islam because I understood the question as pertaining to today rather than historically over time. Today, I think Islam is worse because it treats women as chattel and condemns homosexuals and apostates to death. And is actually in power in many parts of the world.

Christianity is just as immorall, but its influence is mitigated by Enlightenment ideals.

And Judaism, the root of it all, has less power still. But to imagine that the all-powerful creator god doesn't only hold your planet or your species as its special chosen favourite, but your tiny ethnic group and your little plot of ground? Well that's pretty fucked up evil.

 

[Worldquest]

Fundamentalism refers to a strict adherence to a particular set of principles (often found in an ancient text). Atheism does not have any principles (nor a book to follow) so cannot be fundamentalist. The active and vocal proponents of atheism and rationality (if you insist on religious terminology) I would call evangelical atheists.

Fundamentalist, evangelical, it all sounds preachy to me. What I mean is that some atheists are cool, and some have this really weird thing about insisting that they're right, and wanting to ram it down people's throats, saying why why why prove it prove it otherwise you're stupid. The same applies to some people in religions, of course.

I mean, if you don't believe in god and I do (by the way I'm not using you as an example, I'm just making the point), then so what. In my book, anyone who so fervently insists on showing the other person just how wrong and stupid they are all the time must have something wrong with them, and muct have a wish to have everyone have the same view as them, how else can you explain it? No easygoing person would do that. They're comfortable with differences in opinion. On forums I understand that everyone gets tetchy and opinionated and we should allow for that to an extent, but in real life when actually dealing with people, it's a useless approach.

If atheists want to express their views and present whatever information they have about their take on life, then go for it. But it's when they get on their high horse that it gets silly and it makes them almost indistinguishable from some wild eyed fundie christian. The fundie's "hook" is "you're evil if you disbelieve me", and the fundie / evangelical (whatever word you want to use) atheist's "hook" is "you're stupid if you can't see that I'm right". If by some weird logical quirk atheists somehow believed in hell, I'm sure some of them would use that as their hook. The anger behind it is just the same. So I don't know which word to use, evangelical or fundamentalist, but that kind of attitude is what makes people turn to each other and say "yo, whassup with that dude, he sounds like he's trying to preach to us".

 

[Aught3]

Fundamentalist, evangelical, it all sounds preachy to me.

Well I've explained to you what 'fundamentalist' means and 'evangelical' perfectly encapsulates the idea of preaching that you are complaining about so I think my suggestion of evangelical atheists was completely right.

As for the 'hook' of being stupid if someone doesn't agree with your argument I think that's pretty common in any discussion. Person A believes they are making rational and reasonable arguments that the average person would accept. But person B doesn't accept those arguments. Person A either has to believe that their arguments weren't that convincing (which would be contradictory) or they have to believe that person B is less than average in the mental department. Are you sure you're not just confusing 'high-horse' atheists with the usual assortment of jerks that pop up all over the ideological spectrum?

I find one of life's greatest pleasures is to sit in the shade of a tall tree and debate aspects of philosophy with a group of interested people. If one person isn't enjoying themselves or doesn't like the conversation, they are perfectly capable of walking away - no one is ramming something down anyone's throat! Indeed, people can turn off the telly, walk out of lecture, or stop reading a book if they don't like what atheists are saying. When two people engage in discussion it is completely voluntary, in fact the only example I can think of for 'ramming' would be Christians preaching on street corners with a loud set of speakers - I just hope atheists don't try an copy this religious annoyance.

 

[Worldquest]

Fundamentalist, evangelical, it all sounds preachy to me.

Well I've explained to you what 'fundamentalist' means and 'evangelical' perfectly encapsulates the idea of preaching that you are complaining about so I think my suggestion of evangelical atheists was completely right.

As for the 'hook' of being stupid if someone doesn't agree with your argument I think that's pretty common in any discussion. Person A believes they are making rational and reasonable arguments that the average person would accept. But person B doesn't accept those arguments. Person A either has to believe that their arguments weren't that convincing (which would be contradictory) or they have to believe that person B is less than average in the mental department. Are you sure you're not just confusing 'high-horse' atheists with the usual assortment of jerks that pop up all over the ideological spectrum?

I find one of life's greatest pleasures is to sit in the shade of a tall tree and debate aspects of philosophy with a group of interested people. If one person isn't enjoying themselves or doesn't like the conversation, they are perfectly capable of walking away - no one is ramming something down anyone's throat! Indeed, people can turn off the telly, walk out of lecture, or stop reading a book if they don't like what atheists are saying. When two people engage in discussion it is completely voluntary, in fact the only example I can think of for 'ramming' would be Christians preaching on street corners with a loud set of speakers - I just hope atheists don't try an copy this religious annoyance.

I'm not too fussed about what is the right word, because I know what I'm referring to and hopefully so do you. I'm aware that being obsessed with others being wrong is common in many discussion, my point is that in atheist "versus" theist discussions, it's very very common. When it comes to such fundamental beliefs or lacks of beliefs, in other words fundamental views on life, it's obviously understandable that some people will get on their high horse. The thing is, there are people who don't, they really aren't threatened by other's views, and yes I do believe that anyone who gets so tetchy must feel threatened, otherwise they'd be more easygoing about it. No one is under any obligation to accept anyone else's view, or that they might be right because for whatever reason, they might not think the other person is right. It's our prerogative. It's when people try to cross that line and make out that others must (MUST!!!) agree with them that we can see their weakness : the need to be agreed with, which could be translated as the need to be validated...and as you say, that's common in all sorts of discussions, it's just these ones are particularly telling. The undercurrent is : You better agree with me.

I feel that I should point out something which is probably obvious but it should be said. Whereas some people here and in general see debates as win-lose, I see them as simply an expression of each person's take on life, with no particular desire to be agreed with. That makes more sense than win-lose because firstly, for people to change their minds, it takes time, it isn't always instant, contrary to what insecure, "you must agree with me" type people demand. People like that need their fix and they need it now, they can't wait for others to ponder and take things into consideration. Secondly, I like the fact that people have different views, and it is good to be aware of what others think about stuff, so to me, it's an exercise in making that happen. Win-lose isn't real debating, it's ego massaging.

By the way I was watching a documentary today about the history of anasthesia and the people who discovered or invented it. The story was full of innovative people being ridiculed by others. It seems to me that in the scientific community there is a lot of win-lose, a lot of ridiculing, and usually it is those scientists who go against the grain that make the best discoveries, while the mediocre majority are so stuck in their left brain (you can take that figuratively if you like, but you know what I mean). I honestly find it quite worrying that the scientific community is so heavily populated by such people. Maybe there should be a thread about that.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

... in fact the only example I can think of for 'ramming' would be Christians preaching on street corners with a loud set of speakers - I just hope atheists don't try an copy this religious annoyance.

No, but I love watching people be put in their place when they're protesting where they're not wanted (epic video : [Youtube]watch?v=Q_RtAeRWInU[/Youtube] ).

I don't believe I shared with this forum about my fundie-slam story, but it was when some guy ran up to one of my Christian friends and told her she was going to hell for enjoying the festival. I basically set the asshole in his place ("Who do you think was responsible for the Dark Ages? Crusades? Inquisition? etc?") and then got him removed to the street corner. The Freedom of Speech was never so fully enjoyed.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well I hope no one's forgetting the 500-600 year gap in science and knowledge,

That argument cmes under 'foolish trivialising', and is a myth. In reality, the church was responsible for a lot of scientific advancement during 'the dark ages'. Next, you'll be presenting 'that graph' as if it constitutes fact.

Don't get caught up in an argument just because it suits your position. Check if it's actually true.

 

[Gnug215]

Fundamentalist atheism. Not to be confused with regular, run of the mill atheism, which is harmless.

You honestly believe that?

It's interesting that you use the word "harmless", when it's fundamentalist Muslims that blow stuff up, and fundie Christians that kill doctors, and make all kinds of crazy legislation.
What have the fundamentalists atheists done to you, other than being preachy, that's so terrible??