I hear all too often "If you aren't religious, then why do you care so much about it?"

Here's some reasons:
-Muslim terrorists believe they are doing their God's will
-Hitler believed he was doing God's will
-It says on American currency and in the pledge of allegiance that we support a God that does not exist
-Human sexuality, a very natural thing is repressed even today because of the effects of religion on society
-In some American states there are laws that prevent atheists from running for government
-The crusades were carried out in God's name
-Iran is spreading more and more propaganda and making it common to hate America and Israel, because of their religion.
-The KKK, CSA, and other religious organizations which carry out hate crimes
-Science is and has always been held back by religion (Currently: stem cell research, cloning, etc.. Past: Theories of the solar system, gravity: etc.)
-Religious politicians do not want women to be able to choose to abort or not.
(On that topic, no I do not support murder, if you ask me abortion should only be legal before the baby has brain activity,
which I've been told is at 40 days. But if destroying a potential life is murder, then you could get technical and say using a condom is murder.)
-Religious politicians want to prevent gay people from having legal rights that come with marraige.
-Religious people are completely devoted to something that does not exist to us, and will do whatever their religion tells them to, even kill.

The list goes on and on, wars.. laws.. murder.. etc. Religion causes very real problems in our world, that's why atheists care.

Indeed, with some religions their very teachings seem to be a propagation of mis-information. Ex: The world is only 4 thousand years old, dinosaurs and men existed together, the universe was created in 7 days.

A spiritual belief in god is one thing but when religion becomes a impedance to progress we are in a scary place.

Why do atheists care? Probably because of the enormous influence faith has in all aspects of their social and political reality. There are people that actually believe the United States is a christian nation. That our President is sworn into office with his hand on a bible enforces that implication. And not to mention the fall out after it was learned representative elect Keith Ellison - Dem. from Minnesota- and the first Muslim elected to Congress, would take his oath on the Koran! One would think it was the end of this Republic, when that news hit the public domain.

Atheists care about religion because the religious care about them. Not that it's any of their business, but when has that ever stopped them!? They're so desperate for everyone to believe their way that they knock on doors and ask if one has heard of jesus. How can you miss it? He's got television shows, billboards, buildings and walking infomercials disturbing the peace of our weekends just to keep up his press. Not to mention all those prisoners that seem to find him in prison. Interestingly enough a penal institution that issues a bible to every new inmate. And if one is not of a mainstream denomination, good luck in exercising freedom of any other religion.

Atheists care because the implication is they're not respected nor accepted for not believing in some supernatural authority over them. And I can't help but think that if believers were comforted by their faith, assured in the path of righteousness as they claim to be, reading and believing in what is essentially someone else's mythology, watered down, edited, reformatted so that the names have been changed to protect the ancients, why do they care at all about the non-religious!?

Oh sure, some will retort, because jesus says.... but that is ludicrous because you see, atheists don't care what believers say jesus said. In our mind jesus said nothing at all. So his emissaries should instead adopt the characteristic of respect and stop insisting we listen to their rhetoric and believe he does. Just to placate their insistence everyone should accept that, else they burn. It's their hell, that their god made for them. So let them live in fear, so as not to roast in it.

For me personally I talk about religion because that is what this website is for. If I argue with a beliver I'm not trying to change their minds I'm trying to help those who are reading the argument and can't make up their mind. I will even defend the believers if they are being bashed because I think there should be a balance. If the believers won every argument on this website then the undecided readers would assume that being a believer is the right way...and vice versa.

Have no doubt there are many undecided people on these boards(I'm one), I think that is why most of us are here. Where trying to find an answer to unanswerable question.

I just try to keep the balance so the undecided can have the knowledge from both sides and use that to eventually come to their own decisions.

I respect religion, but I don't respect people who try to hinder ones freedom or murder of any sort.

This is intelligent.

I am not "religious" but it bothers me to no end when non-religious people blame religion for things like the KKK, etc. It seems to me that it is a case of picking on the group, rather than the negative actions. Your average down-the-street church does not try to convince its congregation to murder black people or whatever.

Its like someone choosing to hate black people because of gang warfare, or hating all muslims because of terrorist attacks. Go ahead and hate the narrow-minded, bigotted people... don't become one of them... just on the opposite side of things.

An atheist who hates Christians because they put the word "God" on the money, are just as bad as Christians who hate athiests for saying "Happy Holidays" in a department store rather than Merry Christmas. Why people waste their time despising whole groups of people is beyond me. Stereotyping is a waste of time when you could be out fighting the actual problem.

Ok so I'm not technically an "atheist", I am an agnostic.
Why does the skepticle crowd (atheists, agnostics) care about Religion?

Because we realize what a horrible horrible plague upon modern society, free thought and learning and a horribly misguided force that encourages group-think, banality, superstition, bigotry and propagates misinformation. Because it has disastrous effects on public policy. Because its religion that the religiosos are trying to force down our throats, because religion has no respect for the privacy and rights of the individual, because religion is a bully, because religion makes moral and ethical retards -yes people that read some book selectively and rather than come to their own conclusions on what is right and wrong believe it easier to have it handed to them. Because religion has killed more people than genocide, because religion is about to spark WWIII, because Religion wants to legislate a whoe segment of the American population into being second class citizens, because religion is stunting the progress of science, because religion reduced the universe to platititudes and mysticism and tries to burn you when you ask "why" Because in religion there is no such thing as "why?". Because religion tells people its ok to mess up the environment, after all, jesus is going to come back and it will all be ok. Because religion makes the human condition something dirty and shameful, because religion says this life doesnt count. Because the god of Abraham was a bully and a tyrant and nothing more -whats worse a tyrant that his zealots want to bring into office today.

Because religion and all its "holy books", all its dogma and lies, its manipulation, its uncompromising zealous pounding on reason and reality will bring mankind to its knees. Because religion is a disease.

sigh.

I wasn't trying to imply that all those things that you put forth in the original post were good things. Oh nope. Of course not.

My viewpoint - perhaps too harshly expressed (and please forgive me for that), is that it is not religion itself that does all those things. It is people - perhaps people with weak intelligence or convictions - but people who make the decision to hate gays, or murder infidels, or fight against stem cell research or whatever. I choose not to blame the belief system, but the people that adhere to the negative aspects of it. Yeah... the people, as babelplatz says, that don't make up there own mind. In my opinion, people have the responsibility to do that - and they should be held accountable for it as well.

To me, its the people's responsibilty and you can't blame religion. No more than you can blame rap music for gang violence. Its not the rap music, its the people that think shooting someone or stealing or whatever, is an okay idea. Its not the religion, its the stupid people that think strapping bombs to their chests or throwing rocks at abortion clinics is an okay idea. I blame the person for the action they choose to do, or the ideology they choose to embrace, not some belief systems that have been bastardized completely by whatever power-hungry person or group felt like it.

I don't see religion as a disease. I see it as just another of hundreds of influences that people have to mix together to come up with their own ideology. If the person comes up with the wrong one... it is their own fault and they should shoulder the blame.

"religion" in and of it self is fine. Just as communism ( on paper) is fine.

It is the human element that frells it up, everytime.

Short, sweet, to the point, and very true IMO. The kind of post I like to see.

No, my thoughts on the matter are more extreme I suppose.
Religion must be done away with. It has proven itself to be a threat to civilization as we know it, a threat to human life. That is the gift that "god" has left us. Religion was designed as a control mechanism on the minds of its devotees. It has hindered us since the beginning and set back the progress of science centuries.

People's personal "spiritual" beliefs are one thing, no one can stop you from believing there is a god or what have you -but the day that someone sat down and created ORGANIZED religion, created dogma and "holy books" and "saviors", then everything went to hell -thats what all this Jesus vs Mohammed rubbish is all about.

All these supposed "paths to god"...people need to set aside an official practice, these "paths", realize that Jesus is a ridiculous fable passed down for two millenia, Mohammed was a warlord and that organized religion as we know it is dangerous.

GOD IS NOT TALKING TO YOU, GOD IS NOT TALKING TO ANYONE, GET OVER IT AND STOP SCREWING UP THE EARTH!!!!

Agnosticism is the only fair and balanced outlook on thing, and the only reasonable conclusion someone can come to free of the lies that "churches" inculcate in you.

Ban religion!

What I find absoluelty fascinating is...how many athiests spend so much time in these kinds of threads.

I live in the Bible belt and I don't hear this much about religion in an entire year. ...but, then again I don't belive in the traditional God.

Yes well I would think thats to be expected when you come to a place on the internet called "Spirituality and skepticism"

So you dont believe in God eh?

Good...sort of.

You want to ban religion and you think it's 'sort of good' that I don't believe in God?

Yes, as I said, I personally am an agnostic. I consider agnosticism the only reasonable "answer" (or rather non-answer) to the question of God. I will definitely concede that the atheist is far more benign a creature than the religious zealot, I'd sooner trust a man with no god than a man who believes god speaks to him (probably about killing me).
But I find a flaw in the logical process that leads to atheism: It is a total negation, an absolute and certain assertion as to the question of god, just as much as deists (lets face it i'm talking about Christians here) make. "God" is something that will never be proven or disproven. I dont say that as a defense of deism, rather as a flaw in empiricism -God need not necessarily exist outside the laws of physics, Science (here's why is so great) doesnt claim to know everything, and for all we know, one day Science will furnish us with some irrefutable equation at the end of which is God....or not God. I dont know. Thats my point. No one knows.

Atheism has a logical fallacy, so does deism. Agnosticism comes from my honest admission that I do not have the empirical evidence to prove the existence of god but reason dictates also that since I cannot possibly have all the factors necessary for my consideration, to come to a conclusion, that I cannot possibly know. I do not know.

That said I stand by my prior statement: Ban religion!

If and when we find a god we're going to look back with shame on what dogma and fables have lead us to do.

I'm glad we don't follow agnosticism in everything. We wouldn't get very far if we left things at "I don't know."



Sounds good to me. Can we also ban choosing your own spouse or what tv to watch?

This is not meant as an insult...but, are you running for public office?

If not...you should be, because I haven't heard that big a run around in a while.

Hitler was raised Roman Catholic and became a Protestant, reinventing his own version of Protestantism that all Protestant sects (excluding a handful of nutjobs) reject. His targeting of Jews and minorities was racially motivated, not religious. Besides, Hitler was a nut who had millions of people put to death for his own twisted ideas of how to improve humanity.

A god that some people believe doesn't exist.



I'd like to see some references about that and, if possible, cases where it was enforced.

And the Malleus Maleficarum wasn't sanctioned by the Church or Inquisition. Rather, it was used by secular organizations. Also, Hiter didn't carry out his shenanigans in God's name.



The KKK isn't a religious organization. You might want to crack open a history book sometime. The CSA (and I'm assuming you're talking about the Confederate States of America, not the Crime Syndicate of Amerika) was a political body made up of the southern US states seceding from the Union. It was political, not religious. The only other CSA I could find that fits is the Confederate States Army, which hasn't been in existence since 1865 and was the military that defended the Confederate States of America. Unless you are talking about the Crime Syndicate of Amerika, in which case they're just evil nutjobs and have nothing to do with any religious organization. They're also fictional.

Edit: I just noticed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord group, which must have been what you were thinking of. They're a small-time bunch of nutjobs that branched off from "Christian Identity" (who branched off from "Positive Christianity") and when it comes down to it, they're just nutjobs no matter what religion or non-religion they are and not exactly supported by mainstream Christians who think these guys are morons. And they were pretty much nabbed by the feds in the late 80's.

Scientists can hold each other back when theories collide. This happens all too often, especially in the "establishment."



It is your belief that god doesn't exist. And most religious people aren't the sheep than you make them out to be. Negative characterizations only hurts your cause. I would rather be on the side of the religious believer than a person who thinks this way.

Wars, murder, etc are also caused by secularism. Wars over land, profit, resources, etc. Murder over jealousy, passion, rage, and good old fashioned nuttiness.



"We" nothing. Don't lump the rest of us in your own personal beliefs.

No. Run around? What dont you get....Atheists are as presumptuous as Deists.
You dont ACTUALLY know there is no god. Admit it, you dont KNOW.
Diests dont KNOW either, they have no proof.

Atheists dont know...deists dont know...what does this leave?

AGNOSTICISM -WE DONT KNOW, AND THATS THE POINT. IS THERE A GOD? I DONT KNOW.
its the ONLY fair and totally reasonable answer.
Run around??

As for "leaving everything at agnosticism"...No I'm not getting at that either, agnosticism isnt an answer --its a persistent asking a question, in a way its the most scientific approach. If we thought we know everything...well...that'd be a problem

Socrates understood the importance of admitting what you DONT know, and then working on it.

I cant expect everyone to come to this same conclusion...I wish they would...but they wont. None of this however makes religion any less dangerous.

Alles klar?

You mean none of this makes fanaticism any less dangerous. Religion in itself isn't dangerous, it's the fanatics who eschew all other states of being who make it dangerous for people who don't think the way they do. And that includes fanatics in atheism and agnosticism.

I love how reasonable you're being, by the way. By proclaiming your path is the only path.

Whats an agnostic fanatic? Last I heard one of had never blown up or killed anyone. Neither had any atheists for that matter.

Yeah, fanatics are the worst of the worst....but Religion?
No. Sorry. No winning merrits there.

Even ignoring the fanatics who have given us such wonderful things as 9/11 and the war on gay rights, Religion has negative effects on people's psychology -none of that salvation business- and by proxy, the rest of society as well.

Religion encourages mental laziness -stop asking questions because here's your answer, religion encouages us to set aside our critical faculty and accept as knowledge that which is based solely on feeling, religion encourages group think and superstition, religion promotes the idea that things are unknowable. One day the march of science will provide an answer to that ultimate question and as accomodating as "moderate christians" are in moving the line further back and further back, what happens when it cannot be moved any more? Who's going to give, who's going to have their world view collapse on them?

I dont even find the notion that the religion's call to charity is one that is redeeming either: this is a function that is just as easily fulfilled by secular humanism without the moral and ethical retardation that comes from surrendering your conscience to a clergyman and wihtout the knee-jerk reaction of good deeds to stay out of hell. Religion encourages belief in mysticism based on FEAR, it is an enabler.
Modern christianity is an enable -somehow having gotten up a sacred shield around people's personal religious beliefs....but why? If its ok to criticize someone's political or economic beliefs why is their explanation of the cosmos off limits? There is such a thing as wrong -great another score for religion, its also too holy to be discussed and is above reproach, great.
If a person is unable to defend their beliefs or even discuss them when pressed to do so then i challenge how truly they believe that anyway.

One can "believe" something, but it doesnt make it right.
Yeah I said it, right (and wrong)...these are answers we can arrive at.

I see no redeeming quality to relgion, only the prolonged manipulation that has brought us to the sad, current state of things.

As I said, there's no reason to put people's religious beliefs above enough scrutiny to say that they are either right or wrong.
Ignorance and subjective interpretation does not validate religious dogmatic mumbo-jumbo

And i repeat: my "path" is a non-path.
see how that works?

Look up "Josef Stalin."

Cite me some sources.



There was a recent thread about that. You should look into it.

Out of curiosity, do you have a background in psychology?

I believe blue and green go together in clothing, but not orange and green. My husband believes orange and green goes together in clothing, but not blue and green. By your logic, I should condemn him for his beliefs.



Why would anyone want to "discuss" their beliefs with you when you already are of the opinion that they are wrong and you are right? There's no discussion. It's just you holding yourself superior to them because you believe that you are better than them.



Then why are you an agnostic? You seem to have all the answers to everything and I don't think saying "I don't know" is even in your vocabulary.

What you are, is a fanatic.

"Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

According to philosopher George Santayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"; according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

anti-religious fanaticism: As opposed to religious fanaticism, anti-religious fanaticism deals with the fanatic opposition to religious doctrine."

That's a crock of crap. Your path is indeed a path and for it to be a "non-path" would mean you wouldn't exist as a human.


You know, you blaze in here proclaiming that all religion is detrimental crap that should be banned and your belief is the only true way.

You know what it sounds like? Every fundamentalist fanatic nutjob who ever told me that their religion was the only path to salvation and if I didn't follow it, then I was a lesser human damned to whatever hell they had. It was crap then, and it was crap now. Being agnostic or atheist doesn't protect you from being the same fanatical fundamentalist that those people are and being agnostic or atheist doesn't protect you from being an idiotic jerk who doesn't understand enough about the world and humanity to make the claims that you do. It certainly doesn't mean you're better than the rest of humanity. I'm all for discussion, but how can there be any discussion with you when all you want to do is "prove" that you are superior to the rest of us? You're merely a bigot.

Ouch, ivy...you made me wince for Babel...

That is false. The documented evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the notion that any measure of religiosity has any negative or painful psychological effect whatsoever. On the contrary, most measures of religiosity are associated with positive effects. Some documentation to that effect was offered in this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p=1205941&#

If you are going to declare something so sweeping about human psychology, you should be able to back it up by reference to the psychology literature. It makes me wonder what statements like the one quoted are based on. Guesswork? Wishful thinking? Certainly not from studying psychology.

Ridiculous. Yes stalin was an atheist. But look at more like this: Stalin was an a-hole dictator who also happened to be an atheist. His brutal rule and murder of millions had nothing to do with the fact that he was an atheist, it is merely another adjective that applies to him kind of like fat, moustached, russian. Adjectives. His Atheism didnt drive him to kill anyone.

Yes, Religion damages people mentally -Look at the list I provided and tell me those arent things religion, by definition, doesnt cause. A demarkation of what is knowable and what is unknowable, group think, the loss of the critical faculty....CIRCULAR LOGIC....

I do not believe people's beliefs are off limits, by no means, and when I do discuss them I get idiotic answeres like yours -It occurs to me that the root of this problem is that you dont seem to know what an agnostic is. An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disblieves in god. An agnostic is someone officially proclaiming they DO NOT KNOW if there is a god...as for your saying "i dont know" isnt in my vocabular...."I dont know" is how I define myself.
I dont know is the most honest answer to the question of God.
I believe I am better than them?
-This is a typical answer than deists, a fanatic in your case, resorts to when they cannot account for what they believe.
How do you KNOW there is a god? Just answer me that one question, perhaps you'll manage with a few words to win me over, I am agnostic after all.

How do you compare your opinion about color schemes to making assertions, factually, that you know how the cosmos is organized? You're SOOOOOO sure there's a god, and that this is how it works that when i openly state that there are merits for both sides I am the fanatic????
Yes, WRONG, one day we'll know -KNOW- not believe and the order of the universe is something you can either be right or wrong about.

What if a giant pink bunny runs the universe? I'm open to the idea cause i'm an AGNOSTIC. You're a zealot.

What I find most ironic is your use of the term "uncritical". You and yours are as uncritical as they come. How could I possibly have arrived at the conclusion that I dont know if there's a god without a critical faculty? How can you claim you believe there is a god and say you are critical?

Do you see how you cling to dogma without even questioning the rubbish you say you believe, do you see how you dont question this supposed God of yours and just take your "faith" at face value? How do you consider that a valid faith?

The agnostic personifies critical. Its YOU thats regurgitating dogma and the atheist that got bored after 2 or 3 questions.
Dogma is never critical.

All you've done is turn your critical faculty and your brain off.

I reiterate, I cant be a fanatic as I dont believe or disbelieve anything. My position is not anti-religious as if you were an atheist I'd be pounding away at you anyway, atheists dont get a free ride with me and they arrive at their conclusions just as prematurely as christians and god freaks.

You should ask more questions and stop taking what theu just feed to you. Thank you for proving my point about moral and ethical retardation.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Religion is messed up.

Atheism may well wrong.
Do NOT clump us together.


Agnosticism is the admission that we dont know if there's a god.

WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND???

No, dont take this as I mean religion causes bi-polar disorder or neurosis. Thats not it at all, as the list that followed explained.

Religion is destructive of people's critical faculty, look at the fanatic i'm arguing with

I'll make all the broad assertions I want to about religion, all I have to do is turn on the news to see its "greatness" in action.

And Hitler was an a-hole fascist who also happened to be a Roman Catholic-turned-Protestant. And yet, the OP of this thread attributed his actions to religion.

No, it doesn't. You need to look at the evidence that was provided to you. I'm willing to bet my paycheck that you have no background in psychology and are thus not qualified to make those gross assumptions.



I'm an agnostic.

I agree with a few of your points but many of them sound more like pointless babble or ranty accusations that hold no real backbone.

I agree. They shout out "Allah Akbar" before killing...Yet note the serious minority of the Muslim Population that are infact, terrorists. There are over a billion muslims.


Where is the direct pointer to this point of view? Hitler did and said many insane things. He needed a factor for murder. Religion can be one.

How does that effect you in any way, shape or form? Does it destroy you too when you see the meaning and spirit of Christmas dying because of peoples "sensitivity" to Religious symbols and images? I personally do not care if God is mentioned in money....Thats probably what God wouldnt want anyways.



Please be more clear on this, what exactly do you mean? Sexuality is a very natural thing...Yet its not natural for a 12 year old girl to be dressed like shes 30 encouraging perverts and pedophiles...Sexuality is natural but sexuality could lead to plenty of problems, go look at sexual assault statistics...People need respect. We cant all be like rabbits popping babies for the government to pay us. Sexuality isnt repressed because of religion or society...my proof? Paris Hilton. Etc. Sexuality is beautiful but there is crossing the line and thats when religion interupts.


Thats stupid and insecure of them i believe if this is the case. How many states Exactly?


Barely...Land domination was a big factor...As much as it apparently was a religious war, it was also strongly a war based on land grabs.


False. Iran is spreading propoganda against the Zionist party of which they say are repressing the Palestinian people...This again isnt a religious war, but a war that supposedly is carried out
to justify the mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis and the support for weapoons by the United States to Israel.



There are religious organizations that spark hate crimes- yet there are non religious racist hate parties too.

No it hasnt. Science is advancing more and more at an increasing rate and religion in the broad view of it has a miniscule role in terms of holding back science. I dont see how religion denies gravity...Thats just stupid people? Cloning has its pro's but it surely has its cons as well. Again religion plays such a tiny role that its not worth mentioning because science will keep expanding.


This is way too personal for people to get into. Not only religious people disagree with abortions. Some see it as murder, others dont...its simple.

Anti Religious politicians want to phase out Christmas, phase out religious symbols like crosses/scarves etc...and stop religious teachings in schools...Again way too small a matter...The politicans are talking on a personal level, they simply dont agree with it.


Thats rubbish. Religious people will kill? If they are devoted to something that doesnt exist to you then how does it effect you? That sounds more like an insecurity on your part...If it bothers you that much then why take notice? This devotion to them is something that is very real and you have to deal with it.



Many of these reasons were more personal views by people and could easily be turned around by seeing what non religious people do, teach and see in people of faith. These reasons are mainly weak with a couple that are good enough for conversation while others are poor attempts at blowing up and exaggerating the fine line between religion and personal opinion.

Don't change the subject. You said:

That is a false statement. I am not supposing you said something about "bi-polar disorder or neurosis" (sic). You said "religion has negative effects on people's psychology," which is simply not true, regardless of how much you want or need it to be true.



You made a broad assertion about human psychology, one that is without basis in fact, one that is in fact contradicted by the psychology literature. It shows a reckless disregard for the facts, at least. When you respond to criticism by saying you'll continue making such statements, I think it shows outright hostility toward the facts. That is as dogmatic as anything the believers are capable of saying, and it can't be regarded as either serious or rational. What you should do instead is acknowledge your error and move on, perhaps asking yourself why you felt the need to make such a statement without factual basis. You might also consider what it means to you to be shown, much to your surprise, that religiosity has no "negative effects on people's psychology." In short, you might get something out of this discussion other than a chance to get up on a soapbox and rant at us.

I see you continue making this statement with absolutely no support from the discipline of psychology or psychiatry, or any other discipline for that matter, even after you're shown documentation that the statement is false. This reminds me of discussions with Biblical creationists. Why do you want or need this to be true, despite the scientific evidence?

A billion muslims who are terrorists in sense. I mean, they hold a terrorist in very high respest... Muhammad. He's looked on in the muslim world as the perfect human. His actions are what should be followed. From lining up jews in a trench for a long and bloody beheading over 600 to 900 jews, to the slaughter of children who had pubic hair on their bodies so they must die, and to the women and very young girls he raped just to throw that out there. The Koran clearly states to kill. That's the religion.



So it shouldn't bother good Americans that the religious people of this country raped the pledge? Look it up... 1952 the pledge was changed to put under god in. Disturbing if you ask me. Religious ideals never end good.

I as an atheist should ignore the brainwashing of children, the acts and deeds done through religion, the ignorance of the world around being fought actually for against science, and the suffering religion seems to always cause? The meaning of x-mas is not held in the eyes of the world but rather the eyes of your own heart. If you feel in some way that because people don't support flashy lights, a jesus doll on the front lawn of the police station and the angels on flags... That's really all on you and your fellow believers failure of not seeing the true meaning of x-mas but rather what you want. You don't need symbols or images for a true meaning. All you need is understanding and a heart for it. Even the material nuts pope spoke up against wants for christmas last year... he's a hypocrite but there's truth in those words. People have diverted attention away from the religion and have focused on their greeds in this world. Shame on them I say - Not shame on those "evil atheists".



You're talking about modern standards that have been brought up by science and natural morals with those facts as if religion embraced them thousands of years ago. Fact is... As long as they're married, a 50 year old man could have relations with a 9 year old if he really wanted to in the time of Christ. Pretty sick if you ask me, but hey... It was done.

Based still very much so on religion which still has a deep vein of hatred in this world.



No. You are the one who is false. Jihad against the Jews and Christians is pretty well respected. Yes, that's what it is... Jihad from the Palestinian side. It is a religious war.

Yes, it has. If it hadn't we would know lots more about the world today and be a bit more advanced. Religion has always held back science because of some ancient scribblings it follows. "The earth is flat!" "The earth is the center of the universe!" while also greatly denying the right to freedom of thought. Science today is only expanding because of it's progress in small doses and it's waking people up from the long sleep of ignorance that will gain more support. Even yet, religious people who have no business in science speak up against it because they don't understand, they just know enough to know it's against the ancient scribblings.



A lot of religious people disagree and would like to see the rights of women stripped. Religion has a long blackmark on the treatment of women and their rights.

So what? That's good... It's public area and shouldn't be a stomping ground of ignorance. That gives religious people the right to deny loving people rights? That's just barking mad.



Lots of religious people kill for their belief. Are you actually denying that?

Non-religious people aren't preaching about falsehoods and lies that they base their actions on however. Religion causes many problems in this world... Can you deny that?

--



Umm... Yes it really does. I'm a victim of religion and while I was under the influence of the such it was bad, as in a mental problem for believing, actions and my words.

I'm sorry for what you went through, but religion in itself is not harmful towards a person's psychological well-being. It's the people involved that cause the damage. And yes, it is a gross generalization and misinterpretation of the scientific evidence to say that religion is innately harmful.

Boorite, I wonder how many times you'll have to repeat yourself?

I didn't know that one had to qualify a personal opinion or observation, with credentials of support from the mental health sciences. And given psychiatry boasts in it's history the likes of Jung and Freud , a lay persons personal opinion about any subject, especially religion, is not contingent on being validated by theories postulated from the mind of people no more qualified to claim they absolutely "know", than it is by people that hold an opinion on this topic from personal experience.

QUOTE

A delusion is defined as a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained despite of what everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary (DSM-IV, p. 765).

Religion is Mental Illness

Religion is a delusion. It's premise is faith in an invisible force that is somehow cognizant of our existence and as such has a vested interest in our well being. Rather than ask someone to provide a statement of proof to support their opinion, I would say prove religion is not an emotional and mental delusion.

In Iraq we witness on a daily basis on the news, zealots that believe in giving their life so as to take that of others, in the name of a fundamentalist Muslim ideology. Jim Jones orchestrated the murder of dozens of believers because he and his cult thought they would be better served to poison with Kool Aid than be questioned about their christian devotion. David Koresh was executed by the Federal government in his church because he believed himself a prophet entrusted to translate certain key parts of a book called "revelation". Televangelists garner tax exempt funds in the millions, from believers because they somehow imagine their god has overhead! And in the process some, like Pat Robertson, illicit support from followers to boycott a stuffed animal named "Tinky Winky", because said minister believes it to be an icon of homosexuality because of how it's dressed!

Jesus saves! And yet, contextually speaking, he saved not one soul from living under the dominion of the Roman authorities that saw fit to feed people to the lions, nail and tie them to crosses, and invade every known tribe of the world in the name of their political pantheistic authority!

And don't forget America's homeland tragedy on September 11, 2001. Psychotic zealot Muslims boarded commercial airliners and murdered thousands of innocent people in the name of hate and Allah!

So while religion in itself is benign. A word that has no real semblance of meaning of import save that which it's adherents subscribe to it, to believe there is an invisible unseen man or woman that gives a care about us personally, given the current state of Global affairs on a planet that boasts a religious populace majority, it is not only valid but credible in itself , exactly what faith has wrought for believers and non, world wide!

If prayer to something that resides first in the temple of our mind worked, if the passion of faith manifest anything at all, we would not see a world besieged by the unholy like AIDS/HIV, terrorism, war, environmental suicide and a score of other plagues and damnations that would seemingly have no end in sight despite the erection of countless temples to some invisible ideology of sky fathers and after life promises.

One asks another to prove, through the mental health sciences, that religion is a mental illness. I say prove , given the thousands of year history extant of all recorded religions (pagan and mainstream) that it is not!

Interesting but not really convincing for me. I was made to believe things that are simply and utterly false - brainwashing. Then I was basically forced (as a child) to believe these things and the aspects of religion.

Mental illness is a concept in psychiatry and other mental health professions referring to mental abnormality associated with distress and/or dysfunction. This can involve cognitive, emotional or behavioural impairments. The term 'illness' implies the existence of a medical condition with a specific pathology that causes symptoms, something that is the subject of much research and debate. Similar but sometimes alternative concepts include: mental disorder, psychological or psychiatric disorder, emotional problems, emotional or psychosocial disability. The term insanity, sometimes used colloquially as a synonym for mental illness or irrationality, is used technically as a legal term.
Source

That fits into religion quite nicely. Faith isn't only without evidence but believing in something that is imaginary... Take the word "faith" out and most religious people would call that person insane and suggest they need immediate help.

Boorite has a strong background in psychology, so I think he is qualified. Especially since there IS a lot of scientific evidence to back it up.

However, the issues that I am having with this person is that s/he is claiming that all religion is false, all people who follow religions are just brainwashed fools, and that his/her path of that particular brand of agnosticism is the only true path. BabelPlatz is very clearly saying that his/her beliefs are the true, rational beliefs and that all others are false and others are inferior for believing so and yet, claims to be an agnostic that's "open-minded." This is not limited to just the Abrahamic religions either. BabelPlatz is attacking all religious peoples, which includes paganism; anyone who believes that there is a deity out there, even if that person doesn't have a speciic definition for it.

That is what I take offense at.

Also among his/her gross generalizations was the assumption that I am a religious person. S/he said over and over and over that I was a believer in god, despite me never once professing to have a belief in a deity.

"You're SOOOOOO sure there's a god,"
"How can you claim you believe there is a god and say you are critical?"
"do you see how you dont question this supposed God of yours and just take your "faith" at face value? How do you consider that a valid faith?"

I am an agnostic. Even when I was a Christian growing up in the south, even when I was a practicing Wiccan, I was still an agnostic. I followed a Christian faith because I was raised to do so but I didn't know why and I didn't know if there was a deity of any kind. I follwed a Wiccan path because I thought it would be something I could believe in. However, I still didn't know, I still abandoned those faiths, and I still don't know. I am an agnostic.

And I am disgusted by the bigoted, fanatical, self-righteous way that BabelPlatz is presenting him/herself as knowing the answer of how we should all live, even though s/he claims to be an agnostic. BabelPlatz said ""I dont know" is how I define myself" and yet s/he says, with every bit of sureness that s/he can muster, that his/her path is the only reasonable and right path.

I am an agnostic who is saying that I don't know if there is a deity or not, but whether or not a deity exists, it is not up to me to decide how other people should believe. I have absolutely no right to say that my beliefs are the right ones and everyone else are a bunch of mindless idiots who don't know any better. That's the exact same rhetoric I heard for almost 20 years from my hometown church and it was no more true of them than it is of BabelPlatz. Just because BabelPlatz is an agnostic, does not mean s/he is automatically right. I am sick and tired of fellow agnostics taking that stance.

As I said, that's not the religion itself, it's the people in it. If the gross generalization that all religious people are just brainwashed to believe everything they're told on faith, the world would be a very different place. For example, my devout Mormon coworker wouldn't be a paleontologist. I'd like to hear someone tell him that he's just an insane person with an emotional disability who believes everything his church tells him on faith alone.

It was not a statement of subjective personal opinion or observation. It was a declaration that "religion negatively affects people's psychology." When shown strong documented evidence that this statement is false, the poster merely repeated the statement, again without support. No, nobody has to back up their statements with facts, but in this case, it is well worth noting that the statement has no factual basis and in fact is contrary to the scientific findings.


The theories of Jung and Freud have nothing to do with anything I offered in the way of documentation. Nor is there any claim that anyone absolutely knows anything. The poster made a false statement about psychology and refuses to either abandon the statement or provide support for it.



I asked no such thing. I only asked that the poster either support his remark about psychology or acknowledge that his statement is false.

By the way, I would never use a phrase like "the mental health sciences." Nor was the term "mental illness" in play. What the psychology literature shows is that religiosity has no harmful psychological effects of any kind, and indeed is associated with many positive effects. This does not mean a person should therefore like religion or is wrong to reject religion. What it means is that it is counterfactual to say that religion generally harms people psychologically.



So you want to use a term like "mental illness," but you pre-emptively reject the findings from the fields to which that term belongs. There is really no way for me to address such a position. It is as intractable, unreasoned, and closed-minded a stance as that of any fundamentalist.

Priceless! You just invalidated any credibility you thought to impart.

I'm curious, how did he do that?

Completely, 100% wrong. Pure psychobabble. As stated repeatedly, religiosity has been closely studied and there has been a pronounced failure to find any "distress and/or dysfuntion" or "cognitive, emotional or behavioural impairments" associated with it. In fact, studies have found the opposite. Nor is religiosity a "mental abnormality." In fact, in virtually all places and times throughout history, it has been not only normal but also normative. Did you stop to think for one second before posting this? Before quoting the field of psychiatry as supporting your view of religion as mental illness, did you think of consulting, oh, I don't know-- the field of psychiatry? Didn't you even wonder how it is that a religious person can walk into a psychiatrist's office and not get immediately locked up, if religion meets the definition of a mentally ill person? Or do you care at all about what mental illness really is, except an insult to hurl at those who don't believe as you do?

In any case, the definition of "mental illness" given here most certainly does not "fit religion quite nicely." You are way off base.



And you base this opinion on what? Nothing, apparently.

If you don't like religion, that's fine with me, but stop falsely characterizing religious persons as mentally ill. That is bigotry.

What concerns me is why it seems to be acceptable to make bigoted, disparaging remarks against a group of people for their personal beliefs and then claim it's in the name of reason. I didn't think this was that kind of website.

Having no point to make, you can always insult the other guy.

I don't care if I'm credible, incredible, tall, short, green, or Neptunian. The issue is not my person. In case you missed it, the issue is whether or not religion harms people psychologically.

Lovely attempt at deflecting your own responsibility in that vein. Indeed that would seem to be your tactic. Again! Ad hominems invalidates your credibility. The fact is that the role of religion in mental illness is understudied. If you were invested in presenting a fair argument in this thread, you would admit that. But you don't . Instead you attempt to assault others for their opinion and valid claims that religiosity (nice phrase by the way, ever look it up? "affected or excessive devotion to religion." ) is a form of mental illness. Mothers that murder their children because some religious entity told them to, is but one example. Zealots that terrorize the world in the name of a deific principle are another proof .

Religiosity Common Among Mothers Who Kill Children

Somehow I missed another great instance of the definition game:



GW, did you even read the definition you posted? Here is why it does not apply to religion:

1. "...despite what everyone else believes." Again, religious beliefs are usually normal and even normative in one's own culture. It is patently not a case of believing despite what everyone else believes. Quite the opposite, as even the most casual attempt to read the definition would have made clear to you.

2. "...false personal belief...despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary." Religious propositions cannot generally be shown to be false with incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence. There is no such incontrovertible proof.

This is why religious people can go into a psychiatrist's office without being diagnosed delusional. Didn't you pause to think about that for even a second? I mean get serious, really.

I think there is not only suggestive evidence but proof that religion can both harm someones psychological state.

Over embracing paricular views like for example 'The world is going to end' or demonic possession can cause things like paranoia and depression. Or embracing the view that your beleifs are the only way causes delusions of grandure and meglomania. Look at religious extremists like the christians who snipe off abortion doctors or islamic terrorists, these are examples of how not only beleifs can be harmful psychologically to the individual but to others as well. A prime example of meglomania iduced by religious beleifs is Adolf Hitler and his followers who embraced his views as well.People can also become delusional thinking they are possessed for example and that the only cure is exorcism.

Religion often leads to absolute views that can not only harm individuals but entire societies or groups of people. The gay debate for example is based purely on religious values yet causes harm tothose who wish to marry etc. Religious views in politics often leads to fascism and hatred, history time and time again prooves that such views lead to wars and genocide.

It's not just that it affects the individual psychologically but entire groups of people psychologically.

Can you back that up?

And if the role of religion in mental illness is under-studied, isn't it true that you don't have sufficient factual basis to declare that religion psychologically harms people?

The claim is absurd, for reasons I've made clear. You are engaging in bigotry. Just make up insults to hurl at those who believe differently from you. It's no different from fundamentalists ranting about the evil secular humanists and amoral evolutionists. It's a caricature, and a false one.

And I suspect you know quite well that the term "religiosity" does not mean "excessive" in the context of psychology research. You are playing the dictionary game.



Finally, a citation of some sort. I'll be glad to read it.

Edit (having read the article): Holy cow, GW. Did you even read this article? If you did, how on Earth can you claim that it supports your bigoted contention that "religiosity is a form of mental illness?" Here is what it says (emphasis added):



At most, "some experts" suggest that certain fundamentalist religions might tend to either explain away or misinterpret symptoms of mental illness.

Nowhere is it suggested that religiosity causes or is a form of mental illness or that it does any other form of psychological harm.

Thanks for the article. It does not support your position.

Yes, yes I can.

"The role of religion in mental illness remains understudied. Most prior investigations of this relationship have used measures of religiosity that do not reflect its complexity and/or have examined a small number of psychiatric outcomes....."
Dimensions of Religiosity and Their Relationship to Lifetime Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders" (Continued)


As the role of mental illness is under studied it would then be fair to say you do not have a sufficient factual basis to declare that religion does not harm people psychologically. Nor is there any credible research that declares an absolute that religiosity does not contribute to emotional and psychological disorders. You're defending your position from a personal standpoint, not from anything that is fairly representative of research in the field of psychology/psychiatry. And to then toss out the "bigotry" indictment is an example of someone that is taking this discussion personally. As if the evidence there are whack jobs that call themselves religious and are made so, in part because of what their faith has compelled them to feel and do, does not exist.

And contrary to your denial the "dictionary" argument as you like to call it is as valid as the definition you expect to impart when you use the term; religiosity. Unless of course you imagine that women that murder their kids because they believe god or the devil told them to, is normal. Unless you believe fundamentalist zealots that slaughter innocent people as a sacrifice to god is normal. All of which are mental health conditions and as such that are aberrant behaviors under the purview of the mental health sciences.

Religion isn't intrinsic. It's a man made institution. Faith, in that which is dedicated to the insubstantial claims that some intangible entity or spirit exists and is invested in our creation and continued existence and we in it's by virtue of an investment in the faith that it exists. Someone chooses to curb their intellect to accept what are fundamentally defined as myths and fables. Because you claim someone's claim is absurd because they recognize faith precludes fact, doesn't mean it's true. Rather it means you are investing a personal defense into this discussion and as such resort to labeling opinions that conflict with you as bigoted. And that is what is absurd.

Oh... That's the religion it's self. It's the lies that seduce people into following the said religion. Gives them false hope and gives them a meaning.

Still holds that said faith. Being a believer in the Mormon religion doesn't say a lot either to the said person... Gold plates in a hat John Smith and the native americans are really white people being punished so they've got brown skin.



So... The fact praying to an imaginary being isn't a tad insane? Being brain washed with lies is a mental condition by the way. Cult members are considered brain washed and a cult is just a religion who isn't big enough to be called a religion.

Yes... By all means let's consult the field of psychiatry...

A delusion is defined as a false personal belief based on incorrect inference about external reality and firmly sustained despite of what everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary (DSM-IV, p. 765).

A perfect fit onto the mold of religion.

They don't get locked up because they aren't a threat to society as we view. When they do hijack a plane, blow up a school house, rape and such else, they do get looked at and locked up.

Insult? Interesting... I'm calling my very own past a mental illness with the ignorance I suffered from and the distorted realities with the lack of evidence. This is my opinion from breaking free and looking back. If you take offence to my very own personal growth, well that's really all on you.



My opinion is forged from my religious past. Religion forged me to what I am today. I push against. Amazing what some rational thought does to a person.

A religious person calling me a bigot... Yes, because religion has been so very kind to other religions, women, homosexuals and those that don't fit into their own views.

I gave my proof clearly showing religion as a mental illness. The onus is all on you to prove me otherwise... Is there a god... Are you right?