Why Tolerate Religion?

[UltimateBlasphemer]

First off, I should let you all know that I am an anti-theist atheist.

Many of you will agree that religion not only has a negative effect on the minds of people, but the very foundation of our modern society. Many of you will also agree that religion retards scientific progress, and therefore the betterment of humanity.

But as I understand it, many atheists think it is impractical or unwise to ban religion and cultism. My gut reaction is to disagree with this. Other than some speculated political backlash, I haven't really heard a good argument for this. Personally, I think tolerating religion is equivalent to promoting ignorance.

If you think we should tolerate religion, please share why.

 

[Gnug215]

I think the objection most people would give you has to do with rights; rights to believe what we want.

I'm also thinking slippery slope.

From a more pragmatic angle, I think many would suggest that banning religion would not solve the problem, and it might make it worse.
From an entirely practical point of view, we'd have to be banning something that billions of people do, so...

Personally, I just think the public mentality needs to be moved to a place where all matters of science and policy should be decided without invoking religion - something no evidence can be offered for.

 

[Prolescum]

This.

I think the objection most people would give you has to do with rights; rights to believe what we want.

I'm also thinking slippery slope.

From a more pragmatic angle, I think many would suggest that banning religion would not solve the problem, and it might make it worse.
From an entirely practical point of view, we'd have to be banning something that billions of people do, so...

Personally, I just think the public mentality needs to be moved to a place where all matters of science and policy should be decided without invoking religion - something no evidence can be offered for.

Not this.

First off, I should let you all know that I am an anti-theist atheist.

Many of you will agree that religion not only has a negative effect on the minds of people, but the very foundation of our modern society. Many of you will also agree that religion retards scientific progress, and therefore the betterment of humanity.

But as I understand it, many atheists think it is impractical or unwise to ban religion and cultism. My gut reaction is to disagree with this. Other than some speculated political backlash, I haven't really heard a good argument for this. Personally, I think tolerating religion is equivalent to promoting ignorance.

If you think we should tolerate religion, please share why.

It's not even a case of toleration, practicality or wisdom - it's simply about respect.

If I argue from an atheist point of view, it's not to convert, it's to discuss. If they go away thinking about it, that's a bonus from my perspective, but matters not a jot.

How can you take the moral high ground if you're just as intolerant as they are? The anti-religious are as bad as the religious themselves, but nearly twice as hypocritical.

 

[Aught3]

Make religion a thought-crime? I can't think of anyway that could go wrong... :lol:

 

[Demojen]

Many of you will agree that religion not only has a negative effect on the minds of people, but the very foundation of our modern society.

Nope. I disagree with that assessment. The members of this board are more intelligent than to simply throw every believer into the same pigeon hole. I know I don't.
I'd be happy to live with believers if their motivation (The spreading of "the faith") wasn't their disease.

Many of you will also agree that religion retards scientific progress, and therefore the betterment of humanity.

While it has previously I would not say religion is the root cause for any failure of science to progress. Being I don't believe, I'm not going to blame your beliefs for your bad actions, rather I'm going to blame you. You may claim you're being pragmatic attacking the belief, but then you have to be very specific about that belief, in determining what part of it is responsible for actions.

At some point you're going to stop blaming the beliefs. They are only part in parcel to the underlying problem.
Organized religion is like a social experiment. Once you've identified the triggers, you can bring down the house of cards.

However, beliefs haven't had a universally negative impact on society. We owe a great deal to the inspiration of the supernatural. Even today as our scientists look to the future, questioning the boundaries of technology and dreaming up new ideas.

Religion is not a single entity responsible for the ills of society.
The proprietors of indoctrination are.

Left unchecked, unchallenged and to their own devices, every society in the history of this planet has formed a heirarchy all it's own or on it's own has gone extinct. When the clergy get involved, beliefs can become the bane or the security for that society. They give people something to unite for when their numbers become too many to unite under nationalist interests.

We are no better than the ones who want us gone, telling them they aren't entitled to believe.
You want your people to respect and fear you. Not to hate you. Once they hate you, you will become responsible for their rebellion.

So, to your original question, "Why tolerate religion?"
Fundamentally, we have to live with people. People have beliefs.

In the same way rule 34 of the internet applies to porn, replace porn with beliefs.
That's the beautiful thing about insanity. It's only crazy looking at it from the outside.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

@Gnug215
I don't understand what slippery-slope banning religion could lead to. Could you expatiate?

@Aught3 & Demojen
I have no interest in making god belief a thought-crime. I believe indoctrination, a core process of powerful religions, is the real thought-crime.

I'm also not trying say that banning religion would solve all the ills in society. This is sort of a strawman. What I am saying is religion can be objectively proven to be a significant contribution to the ills, and that it makes sense to try to stop it.

@Prolescum
Given the vitriol of your response, you seem to be getting very defensive. May I ask what are your religious views?

 

[Aught3]

@Aught3 & Demojen
I have no interest in making god belief a thought-crime. I believe indoctrination, a core process of powerful religions, is the real thought-crime.

I'm also not trying say that banning religion would solve all the ills in society. This is sort of a strawman. What I am saying is religion can be objectively proven to be a significant contribution to the ills, and that it makes sense to try to stop it.

While it might make sense to try and stop religion this is very different from actually banning it. In order to ban religion you would effectively make belief in god a crime, but I'm glad we agree this is not the way to go.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Are you proposing some kind of state atheism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

As has been mentioned, people have the right to believe what they want, even if it's wrong. People will always quarrel over their beliefs, no matter what sanctions you may design. I'm a staunch antitheist myself, but I realize there are both positive and negative ways of approaching the subject. If you wanted to challenge the tax exempt status of religion, I would bite, but it sounds like you're suggesting something a little more severe.

The only logical approach that I can think of would be to slowly tighten the laws around cults. Those restrictions would inevitably overlap with mainstream organizations (because they are essentially the same thing) and at least there would be some control over the more insidious aspects of religion.

Haven't put too much thought into the subject though because its not going to happen anytime soon...

 

[Prolescum]

@Prolescum
Given the vitriol of your response, you seem to be getting very defensive. May I ask what are your religious views?

Lol, if you think that's vitriolic, you should see JustBusiness and I get it on :lol:

I have no religious views. It's all bollocks as far as I'm concerned. My issue is with anti-theists who show exactly the same kind of disgust with religionists that religionists show to the rest of us. It's counter-productive and makes us look like wankers.

I think tolerating religion is equivalent to promoting ignorance.

This is the destructive attitude I often refer to. If you live in that black and white world, then you're a fool.

Apart from the bit about strangling cults with the law, I agree with JustBusiness's assertion.

Rabid atheists are as bad as rabid Christians (or whomever else is your 'enemy').

 

[Andiferous]

First off, I should let you all know that I am an anti-theist atheist.

Many of you will agree that religion not only has a negative effect on the minds of people, but the very foundation of our modern society. Many of you will also agree that religion retards scientific progress, and therefore the betterment of humanity.

But as I understand it, many atheists think it is impractical or unwise to ban religion and cultism. My gut reaction is to disagree with this. Other than some speculated political backlash, I haven't really heard a good argument for this. Personally, I think tolerating religion is equivalent to promoting ignorance.

If you think we should tolerate religion, please share why.

Do you follow what's been happening in Tibet?

Is that really what you want?

I have no interest in making god belief a thought-crime. I believe indoctrination, a core process of powerful religions, is the real thought-crime.

Tony the Tiger, the colour pink and barbie dolls are forms of indoctrination. It's been said many times by different folks around here... and I really agree; critical thinking is probably the best counter to any of it.

My beliefs are mine, yours are yours, James' are his, Prole's are his, Gnug and Just Business have their own; what gives you or any of us the right to tell other people what to believe? And I did mean to use the "B" word there.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Some people may not have understood my previous response, so I will make this distinction again. This topic is not about the tolerance of god belief, but about the tolerance of religion. Please understand this difference before giving your input.

@Aught3
It is important to make the distinction that religion is not synonymous with god belief.
Scientology is an example.

@JustBusiness17
As a political strategy, I agree that that banning religion should start with legislation that specifically targets those things which make religion harmful, which are also found in cults. The banishment of religion may not happen anytime soon, but we have objective evidence on our side and a growing atheist minority. In the future, if the education of the general population improves, I think that people will not only want nothing to do with religion, but see religion as a morally corrupting force.

@Andiferous
The key quality of indoctrination is that the indoctrinated are not allowed to question their beliefs. Indoctrination stops free thought.

What event in Tibet are you referring to?

 

[Prolescum]

Some people may not have understood my previous response, so I will make this distinction again. This topic is not about the tolerance of god belief, but about the tolerance of religion. Please understand this difference before giving your input.

Please don't insult our intelligence.


You don't have the right to place your beliefs above anyone else's. It's that simple. If you can't respect that someone has a different view than your own, you might as well just call yourself a fundie and be done with it.
Like I said in my first post (which I've reviewed, and there's no vitriol at all) it's not about tolerance, it's about respect for your fellow human beings to determine things themselves.

This thread is titled: Why tolerate religion? My question to you is, why should we tolerate any bigotry regardless of its definition? And when I say bigotry, I actually mean bigotry.

 

[acheron]

UltimateBlasphemer: Your suggestion is so twisted in upon itself, that if you weren't so committed to it, I would suspect you of comedic intent.

What you are suggesting is an anti-blasphemy law; outlawing expression of religious sentiment.

Even if I take you at face value, and restrict analysis only to religious organizations, the proposal is completely antithetical to a free society. You propose supporting critical thinking by abridging freedom of belief. You propose abrogation of the right of assembly of people holding a particular belief. You propose interference of the state in the communication between parent and child. To prevent "indoctrination" by imposing a state sponsored coercive indoctrination is absurd. These are the trademarks of repression, not free thinking.

Only the most fundamentalist of religious zealots propose state-mandated religious observance. Yet this is exactly what you are proposing; to make religion illegal. You cannot create a thoughtful and open society by jihad, those paths are incompatible.

One person's indoctrination is another's philosophical education. It is completely unacceptable to enforce rules of religion by law. I wouldn't want to live in an Islamic state that made it illegal to follow other beliefs. But neither would I want to live in China, where religion is banned. (This is what Andiferous was referring to, the crackdown on Tibetan Buddhists by the Chinese government.) I want to live in a free society, and you just can't get freedom via oppression.

 

[Andiferous]

Some people may not have understood my previous response, so I will make this distinction again. This topic is not about the tolerance of god belief, but about the tolerance of religion. Please understand this difference before giving your input.

Belief and religion are so interconnected it would be impossible to ban one without compromising the integrity of the other.

Religion:
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

I gather you're referring to organised religion in particular. What structure would have to be in place to qualify a belief system as an organised religion? Are we discussing criminalising believers who assemble for faith matters? Criminalising donation to such an institution? Criminalising discussion of god?

As a political strategy, I agree that that banning religion should start with legislation that specifically targets those things which make religion harmful, which are also found in cults. The banishment of religion may not happen anytime soon, but we have objective evidence on our side and a growing atheist minority. In the future, if the education of the general population improves, I think that people will not only want nothing to do with religion, but see religion as a morally corrupting force.

See, this is too vague to address the issue. If there is going to be a crime involved, the legislation must be very specific.

@Andiferous
The key quality of indoctrination is that the indoctrinated are not allowed to question their beliefs. Indoctrination stops free thought.

Indoctrination (or properly "mind control") is, in fact, one of the slippery slopes we're headed down in this topic. This is what the dictionary says on Indoctrination; your own definition is your own, and again it is a little vague. Indoctrination can be as benign as television commercials or socialising your own children.

Indoctrinate:
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

What event in Tibet are you referring to?

Not any one single event; what's been going on in Tibet has been happening for decades. Tibet's culture is historically steeped in Buddhism and the Dalai Lama served centuries as both spiritual and nation head.

As a Communist state, China banned religious belief or practice and stripped down churches and monasteries (they're slightly more tolerant now... ) China invaded Tibet in 1949 and proceeded to dismantle the state religion (Buddhism) sending the Dalai Lama into exile. There have been many attempts at revolution in Tibet that have been squashed by the Chinese government. The people of Tibet have suffered horrendous human rights violations, monks raped, etc. There continue to be protests within Tibet and protesters continue to be arrested and disappear.

Ironically, the Chinese government is practicing some kind of strange Big Brother mind control by stripping religion from the people.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Religious indoctrination is the anti-thesis of free thought. Banning religion is not banning free thought, it is saving it.

 

[CVBrassil]

Freedom of religion, in my eyes, is the only way to go. Any other way can only lead to atrocities, as evident throughout all history with religious quarrels and theocracy, as well as state-mandated atheism in China and the USSR.

Freedom of religion works. I don't think religion interferes with way too much. At this point, science cannot be stopped by religion. People can be indoctrinated into believing in young earth creationism and all that shit, but science itself will be fine. I hope, haha.

Religion causes bad shit. It does. It has contributed greatly to the AIDS crisis in Africa, everything in the middle-east, the tea-party movement, bad things. But really, banning it? That isn't going to help.

Religious indoctrination is the anti-thesis of free thought. Banning religion is not banning free thought, it is saving it.

By forcing one view upon someone? What good does that do? That isn't free thought. No, fundamentalists aren't free thinkers either, but mandating atheism would not help the free thought movement, if you consider it a movement. It would make us all look like fascists.


Freedom of religion + education = win.

Unless education = shit. Like Texas.

 

[acheron]

Religious indoctrination is the anti-thesis of free thought. Banning religion is not banning free thought, it is saving it.

Are there other ways of thinking we should ban to save free thought? Maybe we should make a list...

 

[Aught3]

Some people may not have understood my previous response, so I will make this distinction again. This topic is not about the tolerance of god belief, but about the tolerance of religion. Please understand this difference before giving your input.

@Aught3
It is important to make the distinction that religion is not synonymous with god belief.
Scientology is an example.

Religion is a framework for understanding supernatural claims. Not all religions include a belief in god but most of them do, it's not possible to ban religion and religious thinking without it resulting in a ban on god-belief.

If you want to ban religious indoctrination that's a different question and it might be more acceptable considering that it is an action rather than a belief.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Are there other ways of thinking we should ban to save free thought? Maybe we should make a list...

Tell me what you think free thought is. Then tell me what you think the opposite (mathematical complement) of free thought is. I think your opposite definition will be similar to my definition of religious indoctrination.

Religion is a framework for understanding supernatural claims. Not all religions include a belief in god but most of them do, it's not possible to ban religion and religious thinking without it resulting in a ban on god-belief.

If you want to ban religious indoctrination that's a different question and it might be more acceptable considering that it is an action rather than a belief.

You hit the nail on the head. Religious indoctrination is the problem that I am addressing: the inculcation of beliefs or practices without potential for critical feedback. Indoctrination is the essential reason that religion should be banned.

 

[Andiferous]

You hit the nail on the head. Religious indoctrination is the problem that I am addressing: the inculcation of beliefs or practices without potential for critical feedback. Indoctrination is the essential reason that religion should be banned.

Yes but, why only target "religious indoctrination"? Why not just target brainwashing in general?

That said, part of the problem is that "brainwashing" is quite hard to prove, and the victim is generally not very helpful in that respect. And I suspect there are actually few religions that use 'brainwashing."