I Don’t Respect Your Religion
Some nice insight into the various mainstream religions “of peace”. Ask your local religious person why it is that every major religion has a book of scripture that has brutal violence and torture in it, it’ll surely bring some entertainment to your day.
I Don’t Respect Your Religion
It appears Muslim fundamentalists just assassinated Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. It is not entirely clear they were responsible however. Not only was there a bombing (usual trademark of fundamentalist attacks), but Bhutto was also shot. So, it could be some other forces in Pakistan who were opposed to the former Prime Minister, including the government of Pervez Musharraf (after the assassination, Bhutto supporters were chanting, “Dog, Musharraf, Dog.”).
If it was religious fundamentalists, it wouldn’t be the first time. It would be about the one billionth time religious folks have resorted to violence to settle disputes. And they usually kill people trying to bring peace or empower others. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was killed by a Muslim fundamentalist for making peace with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a Jewish fundamentalist for trying to make peace with the Palestinians. While Christian fundamentalists are busy trying to create the next Armageddon so we can all die. What a pleasant lot.
Why do they do this? Because they’re supposed to. Read the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. They are all full of violent, bloody fantasies that teach you over and over to kill your enemies. Christians love to think they are the exception to this rule. They’ll say the Old Testament doesn’t really apply anymore because the New Testament overruled all the gory, masochists violence of the earlier book. So, then I guess Genesis isn’t true either since that’s in the Old Testament? Oops.
Then, you’ll get the excuse that Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Yeah, I know, that’s why in Matthew 10:34 he says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Sounds down right Christian of him.
But even if you can make up pathetic excuses for this obvious blood-lust and call to violence, it doesn’t matter. Because in the end Jesus murders almost all of us anyway. Jesus doesn’t just kill the “liars” and the “sexually immoral” and the eight other categories of people who get thrown in “fiery lake of burning sulfur.” He kills all of the “unbelieving” folks as well. If you don’t believe in Jesus, you get the lake of fire! What a swell guy.
Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:35:56
Okay, I’m a Christian. I’m guilty by association already…BUT!
When was the last time you read or heard about a fundamentalist Buddhist terrorist group? A few ‘nevers’ ago, is when. They don’t exist. Why? Because Buddhists are taught to be tolerant as a major tenet of their core beliefs.
You’re right, of course, that the primary conflict in ‘peace loving’ religions comes from members of said religions violently disputing what that ‘peace’ is supposed to look like. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
The urge to do violence is something inherent in humanity’s makeup. The urge to ‘believe’ in something greater than yourself is also part of humanity’s deep inner psyche. Combine the two, and no amount of message regarding the importance of ‘loving your neighbor as yourself’ is going to make it through without filtration vis-a-vis when and how it’s okay to bend the (golden) rule.
The thing about intolerance of a group or people is that it is always the catalyst for violence towards ‘them’, whoever ‘they’ happen to be. That includes, by the way, intolerance of atheists toward their theist bretheren. Atheistic regimes have perpetrated just as many atrocities as theist, under the banner of advancing their ‘faith’, be it political or economic instead of spiritual.
Be very careful as you point out the faults and failures of the major religions, that you don’t fall prey to the same intolerant attitudes you so despise in them.
Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:53:09
Being critical of one’s religion is not intolerance, and Atheism isn’t a religion by any stretch.
Jan 16, 2008 @ 14:27:49
** Xianity is no love-fest, it is a vipers’ tangle **
Xian intolerance and self-righteousness were traits noted with distaste by Romans, two thousand years ago. (See R. Wilken. The christians as the romans saw them. Yale Pr. 1984)
The new religion appealed to poor, uneducated, displaced people pushed into great cities in the eastern Roman Empire. With Jerusalem destroyed and the province of Palestine subjugated in 70 CE, thousands of anti-Roman Jews escaped into Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, and Rome where there were already Jewish enclaves.
Cults of Jesus appealed to marginalized Jews and pagan malcontents who wanted a world cleansed of Roman occupation, who hoped for a religious military leader, who wanted revenge.
One of those was Paul of Tarsus whose letters to xian cells are considered “holy writ” even today. Paul fashioned a mythical being of cosmic proportions who would purify his believers, destroy the empire, and bring about a magical end of the world.
In short, he and his fellow revenge seekers needed a god sharing their nihilistic “values.†Paul had a perverse self-understanding:
27 God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are. . . .” 1Cor1:27-28 NIV
Xianity still appeals to those who believe themselves mistreated. To those in whom resentment surges. To those who must blame others. Xianity is addictive nihilism. Directed inward, hatred of self. Directed outward, hatred of others and the world.
The ‘New Testament’ should come stamped with a skull-and-crossbones.
Fundies are mentally disturbed; and their beliefs, reinforced by brainwashing in monster churches and via televangelists, are a public health menace.
bipolar2
© 2007
Jan 16, 2008 @ 14:45:32
** Atheism is not a religion . . . **
>> The word ‘theism’ is an abstraction about an abstraction, religion.
‘Theism’ is an abstract noun which collectively refers to every religion (another abstract noun) which espouses the existence of at least one god, usually one having a personality, which interacts meaningfully with human beings.
The group of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship. These are non-theistic religions.
Theist and atheist alike can agree about which religions are theistic. Religions are reasonably well-defined “objects” (associations) which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me “the salt which never loses its savour.”
Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any god whatsoever exists. For the so-called Big-4 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God and Yaweh, Ahura Mazda and Allah, not one of them exists. These fictional characters have no greater status as beings than Gilgamesh, Zeus, Sherlock Holmes, or Batman.
Let’s be clear. Theism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion either.
>> A religion is a praxis.
One defining characteristic of ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common practices, identifiable from within and without. (Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts is not a religion. It is however a voluntary association.)
Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no creeds, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification. Atheism is not a voluntary association. Of course, there are voluntary associations which espouse atheism.
>> Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters.
Having an opinion that gods do not exist cannot mean that one has an opinion “about” gods. There is no so-called ‘god’ in reality, according to the atheist, about which to have an opinion.
However, I can have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘Hamlet’ as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘God’ as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’
All I can know about these characters is what I read in allegedly “sacred†primary sources directly devoted to them. I can no more find “God” by doing cosmological research than I can disinter “Hamlet’s†bones in a chapel at Elsinore.
No interpretation of Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” makes some character called ‘Hamlet’ more likely to have existed. No interpretation of the synoptics of the “New Testament” makes some being called ‘God’ more likely to exist. As for theology, it is third-rate fan fiction.
bipolar2
© 2008
May 07, 2011 @ 10:44:45
Brilliant!
Feb 02, 2008 @ 06:42:37
Ive been curious about this for a while, but what do Atheist’s think of nature based religions, such as druidism or wicca? You more than likely do not believe in our deity’s, but what about our rules?
Dec 07, 2013 @ 04:26:21
First of all, there is no one thing that all atheists believe about anything, because atheism is simply a single position on a single issue, the existence or lack thereof of a god. No, we do not believe in your deity any more than in anyone else’s; we do not believe in any gods. I suspect that most people who call themselves atheists are more favorably disposed to nature-based religions than to Christianity, Islam, or other authoritarian-based religions, as am I, but that is mere speculation, and I have no data to prove or disprove it. As I am not really familiar with your rules, I can’t comment on that.
Feb 03, 2008 @ 00:36:42
Because I cannot prove there is a God I believe in him with whatever faith I have. Equally because you cannot prove God DOESN’T exist you have to believe he doesn’t. This requires faith. Therefore even Atheism is faith based in it’s denial.
I think the main problem with anyone of any religion is their zeal. They get over zealous in their piety, and sudden knowledge of what God wants them to do. They cloud common sense, and regular, humane thinking, creating suffering and misery in their wake.
The main problem with Atheists is their counterattack to this religious zeal. In their effort to condemn the acts of good people doing evil things (and condemned they should be. I’m not excusing the inquisition or suicide bombings) they tend to forget that each religion in the world has contributed something towards advancement of some sort
That is not particularly fair.
And to say that All Christians hate themselves or others is wrong. You’re doing what so many Christians do through generalization. There are Christians out there who do not hate, just as there are Muslims, Hindus, and Jews who do not hate.
Dec 07, 2013 @ 04:31:54
No atheism requires no faith, because atheism does not claim that there is no god. It merely claims that there is not sufficient evidence to justify a belief in a god. It requires no faith not to believe in something. If I ask you if you believe in unicorns, and you say you don’t, does that mean you have faith that there are no unicorns? No, it merely means that you do not see a good reason to believe in them. Faith is merely the excuse people give for believing in something for which they have no good evidence.
Feb 03, 2008 @ 20:01:07
OK, first off, the denial of something fictitious that cannot be proven in any way, shape or form is not “faith” any more than believing that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.
Not believing in god(s) is merely a logical deduction that anyone can easily make.
take a look at every major religion and its founding date, take a look at how many religions there were prior and how many were dead wrong or later disregarded due to their erroneous nature (concept like the sun god, or the god of fire were thrown away by people knowing there were other forces controlling these things). now think about what people knew of the world during those times. back in the day of Jesus people not only thought the earth was the center of the universe, they thought the earth was flat.
today, the only people who think either of those two statements are those who are fervent religious types, types who like to pick and choose what to listen to and believe in. people back in Jesus’s time knew close to nothing about their existences, they thought various kings of different countries could be thought of as “gods”. these people would believe what their overlords told them. so much about what they thought of as fact was incorrect. so the question really is, how can you possibly take such a massively uncredited source of knowledge and expect their knowledge of the creation of the universe and everything in it, is somehow correct?
that’s not just a leap of faith, that’s insanity. while you believe in the gods of 2000 years ago, why not follow their other teachings, perhaps their methods for medicines? or of physics? or chemistry?
Yes, the Greeks long ago did have a firm understanding of things like math and construction, and even philosophy, but they were also believers in gods that no one today believes in.. so how can you seriously take the word of people who came after them and really didn’t contribute anything else to humanity, other than teaching that a man was born of a virgin and just happened to be both the son of god as well as being god at the same time? there’s no logical reason to believe that, so the obvious conclusion is to actively deny said events until actual proof is shown. being agnostic to things like this merely invites people to believe in them without evidence, that’s a very bad thing.
May 07, 2009 @ 11:25:38
“Ive been curious about this for a while, but what do Atheist’s think of nature based religions, such as druidism or wicca? You more than likely do not believe in our deity’s, but what about our rules?”
I find it just as silly, but not nearly as destructive or dangerous to human progression as most monotheistic religious establishments. Respect the planet by all means, and follow the basic rules, because (as with all religions) the core is generally good. But belief in karma, or ‘The All,’ or any form of afterlife, or reincarnation, etc is just as uneducated and presumptuous as the major players in monotheistic religions. IMO.
May 07, 2009 @ 12:04:38
Ian hit the nail on the head. How is anything that was written in the bible even relevant since it was written over 2000 years ago with hardly any knowledge of the world around them?
I, personally, am and athiest, and my view of religion is simple: it is a comfort, a comfort that we are not alone, that there is something watching over us. And yes that gives a false sense of security to people who are either too stupid, lazy, or afraid to actually wonder about how we came to be or what happens when we die. Science doesn’t have the answers to those questions and I don’t think we’ll know the answers until, well, we kick the bucket, and that’s fine. Instead of focusing on where we go after we die, why not just enjoy life? One of my favorite quotes is “I am an Athiest. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.
An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.”
I also dislike how people pick and choose certain aspects of Christianity. Take the gay marriage debate for example, almost EVERYBODY who is against gay marriage cites Leviticus 20:13, which basically says if you’re gay you’re going to burn in hell. How is that applicable to modern life when Leviticus says in 20:9 that you should be exiled from society for sleeping with a woman on her period, or when he says that children should be stoned to death for talking back to their parents? major lulz. Gay marriage is the only debate that I can see no side of and the opposition to it is almost entirely a christian/religious movement.
May 08, 2009 @ 12:39:47
@James
Please read up on Sri Lanka. The government is Buddhist and is oppressing the Tamil population, not that the Tamils are guiltless either (think Tamil Tigers). There have also been terrorist actions against the government by Buddhist monks. The prime minister in 70s was assassinated by one.
May 08, 2009 @ 17:10:36
“The thing about intolerance of a group or people is that it is always the catalyst for violence towards ‘them’, whoever ‘they’ happen to be. That includes, by the way, intolerance of atheists toward their theist bretheren. Atheistic regimes have perpetrated just as many atrocities as theist, under the banner of advancing their ‘faith’, be it political or economic instead of spiritual.”
Nay, you have many faults here.
First off, Christianity has no peace core, that is a made up lie since most people don’t know how to read contexts. Such as, “love thy neighbor” doesn’t mean love everybody, it only means to love fellow believers. Christianity is NOT in any way a peaceful religion. Some of it’s followers are.
“Atheistic regimes have perpetrated just as many atrocities”
That’s a downright lie. You base your facts on what? Nothing but lies most likely. Would you like to support that statement? Aw, you can’t? That’s right. What do you want to say? Hitler? A catholic. The biggest that you could even try was communism in Russia… which pales, and I MEAN PALES in comparison to the number of atrocities of religion. No, atheism hasn’t been a big thing until recently, so your just functioning on bluff.
“catalyst for violence towards ‘them’, whoever ‘they’…”
If you ever took a college ethics course in your life, you should know that this is the main function, of RELIGION. A us vs them. We are saved, they are condemned. We are holy, they are nothing. That is religion.
Btw, Buddhists, even though THEY DO have violence streaks, aren’t a theistic religion. They shouldn’t even be considered a religion for general purposes.
May 07, 2011 @ 16:03:12
agreed.