"The God Virus"

[RolandtheHeadless]

The author of the above-titled book has an interesting thesis: that religion is a cultural virus that infects people from one generation to the next. The particular strain of virus you catch depends almost entirely on where you're born. See: The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture

From a description of this book found at http://www.thegodvirus.net/pressrelease.pdf :

Is religion a virus that infects otherwise healthy individuals? That is a question raised by a provocative new book
entitled, The God Virus. It is by noted psychologist and student of religion, Dr. Darrel Ray.

In a cogent and highly readable analysis, Dr. Ray traces the contagion course of religion as it enters the lives of countless individuals,
beginning in childhood and infecting their behavior, professions, sex lives, and virtually every aspect of living. And Dr. Ray knows whereof
he speaks, for he is the child of fundamentalist, evangelical parents, who frequently took their young son to Bible thumping religious revival
meetings.

ﾂ"At the time that my parents began taking me to hear ministers, I was just old enough to understand the words that they preached at us,ﾂ"
said Dr. Ray. ﾂ"From those experiences, I learned who was good and who was bad: people of other religions or of no religions were sinners
who would wind up in Hell. Such teachings infected my young mind and had a profound effect on my life, at least until I outgrew my
impressionable teenage years and was sufficiently determined to think for myself. The degrees that I earned in religion and psychology
immeasurably helped me to see through prejudice, myth, and superstition. My situation is not uncommon, but my book is. And I believe
that people who want to think intelligently and rationally about religion, whether they are believers or non-believers, will find my book a
useful resource.ﾂ"

The God Virus carefully details the practical consequences of fundamentalist religious beliefs, infecting personalities, families, and cultures.
It deals with the superstitions of religion propagated by clerics who, for example, told congregants that cancer and other diseases were the
results of sinful living. As science became more sophisticated and was able to explain the causes of past diseases, such as the Black Plague, religious figures had to back off their initial pronouncements. Such a paradigm continued as researchers discovered the non-divine causes of yellow fever, polio, small pox, pneumonia, tuberculosis, syphilis, gonorrhea, influenza, etc. Such discoveries, unfortunately, did not prevent religious leaders from condemning evolution, homosexuality, aspects of astronomy, anthropology, psychology, and even economics. Blind belief in the righteousness of one's beliefs have caused fundamentalist Christian leaders to claim that that the attacks of 9/11 were caused by the sinful behavior of Americans. Such a pronouncement was not different in intent or origin from fundamentalist Muslim clerics who declared that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God as a punishment to America.

 

[BrianLewis]

Another agenda book I see. I can't really take anyone seriously that would over generalize to that degree.

I agree vaguely with the beginning premise (before it turned into just a bashing session); religion can be a virus for those that never bother to think for themselves. For example, the vast majority of people that assume that bad people go to hell when they die. Hell, there wouldn't be cults of people offing themselves if people bothered to think for themselves.

It would be better to not be so specific, considering the problem is a sociological one where many people would rather follow another person's perspectives than come up with their own. The obvious resolution would not be to throw away religion, but to do research and begin to think for yourself. How many teen pregnancies do you suppose is due to the social stigma for not losing your virginity before high school is over?

By the way, I recall hearing several people on an extremely liberal news channel claim that 9/11 was America attacking itself. Idiotic comments are clearly not limited to "Christian leaders," whatever that is suppose to mean.

I can think of other social viruses too. Like those that constantly post topics bashing Christianity. They say it's because religion is absurd. However, if that were true, where are all the threads bashing Shinto , Buddhism, etc.? Focusing the vast majority towards 1 specific religion seems very much like a lemming (virus) mentality of doing what others do just to fit into a niche.

 

[AquaLung]

Another agenda book I see. I can't really take anyone seriously that would over generalize to that degree.

I agree vaguely with the beginning premise (before it turned into just a bashing session); religion can be a virus for those that never bother to think for themselves. For example, the vast majority of people that assume that bad people go to hell when they die. Hell, there wouldn't be cults of people offing themselves if people bothered to think for themselves.

It would be better to not be so specific, considering the problem is a sociological one where many people would rather follow another person's perspectives than come up with their own. The obvious resolution would not be to throw away religion, but to do research and begin to think for yourself. How many teen pregnancies do you suppose is due to the social stigma for not losing your virginity before high school is over?

By the way, I recall hearing several people on an extremely liberal news channel claim that 9/11 was America attacking itself. Idiotic comments are clearly not limited to "Christian leaders," whatever that is suppose to mean.

I can think of other social viruses too. Like those that constantly post topics bashing Christianity. They say it's because religion is absurd. However, if that were true, where are all the threads bashing Shinto, Buddhism, etc.? Focusing the vast majority towards 1 specific religion seems very much like a lemming (virus) mentality of doing what others do just to fit into a niche.

Yes, a big problem with periodicals like these is that when they use the word religion, the majority of the time they are referring to Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity. I would say, fewer times (Just in general, not relegated to periodicals) they may refer to Abrahamic religion. And in that case they seem to be more specific. Sometimes relating the three (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) being the religions being responsible for war, violence, racism, etc., in the world. Or, typically including Christianity and Judaism with (more specifically) Muslim terrorism by default as being a part of Abrahamic religion.

Rarely will negative reference to religion include Eastern religions like Buddhism. In fact, Cosmic Humanism (or New Age) religion in the west has viewed Eastern religion, co-mingled with Western technology (I know that today this would sound paradoxical) is what will bring about global/human advancement.

I think certainly American society has been programmed to see Christianity as a disease of sorts by the media (movies, TV, etc.). A number of horror movies like Carrie for instance will depict Evangelical characters being spookier than whatever evil force is given the top billing. The crazy religious parents with a creepy glare who want to lock up their children, and beat them to death if they look at someone of the opposite sex, etc.

Now the idea of throwing away religion has brought religious extremist's twin brother; anti-theistic governments (Stalin, Tung, Pol Pot, etc.).

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

It's dangerous to try to critique a book you've never read. In fact, the author does cover Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions. If the focus is more on the Abrahamic religions, that would be because the book is written in English, for a Western audience, and based on the author's extensive experience in counseling members of these religions.

None of which renders his premise -- that all religion is spread like a virus -- invalid.

The book is supported by citations to numerous studies and surveys, which yield ironic results. It turns out that rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, and porn usage are highest in the Bible Belt states of the US and among self-described religious people; and that adultery, child physical and sexual abuse are higher than average amongst the devout and members of the clergy.

In the face of such and similar statistics, the author suggests that the religion virus does more harm than good to human life and relationships. I suppose you could describe this thesis as an "agenda," especially if you prefer to hear something else.

As to the complaint that too many religious topics are posted here, I can't seem to find any other recent ones at all. But one of the author's points is that the religion virus self-protects against any questions or criticisms, and maybe we're seeing that exact phenomenon being demonstrated here.

 

[AquaLung]

First off, a more appropriate way I may have put it could have been "The problem with many periodicals that address religion is....", instead of "periodicals like these.....".



However, right off of the bat I can see far too many similarities with the other various references to alleged problems with religion. As far as judging the book without reading it, I don't think much discussion can take place if everyone had to read it before commenting on it.



One of the commonalities I'm referring to is that the author Dr. Darrel Ray is an atheist-activist. The book I can tell is not unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. Atheist-activists (or anti-theist activists) are quite aggressive in their campaigns to limit religious activity in countries like the U.S. and Britain. And although as far as I can tell the term was not quoted by himself, the term Bible-thumper/thumping is most certainly a pejorative. One cannot use the term Bible-Thumper, and expect to come across as objective, neutral, etc.



As far as referring to mainly Abrahamic religion due to having a more western perspective, I don't agree. Eastern religion has a strong presence in the U.S. equal to Islam, if not stronger. Particularly if we include New Age religions. Islam may be the fastest growing religion in America, but that doesn't mean it's surpassed other Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Many also make the argument that Buddhism in particular is not a religion.



Those ironies are not really that ironic when digging deeper into the issues, because usually what is addressed is cultural Christianity as opposed to practiced Christianity. And there's all types of manipulated references to atheism being superior to (for the lack of a better term) religion. For instance, some of these atheist-activist groups will claim that atheist nations are more peaceful than religious or Christian nations. And they will use a country like New Zealand as an example. And they will refer to NZ as an atheist nation because of some stats that indicate a decline in church attendance. That in itself does not make NZ an atheist nation, and they overlook the fact that NZ was never a warring nation. And NZ, like most colononizing nations consisted of Christian immigrants. And there really is no atheist nations in any official sense.



They also make claims that atheists are more knowledgeable of the Bible than Christians, or many Christians. Again, a twisting of facts. This claim only holds partial truth in that the atheists they are referring to are the activist atheists (Freedom From Religion, etc.) who many were Bible students, ministers, theologians, etc. And naturally of course that very small minority of atheists will know more than, say, a new convert who never read the Bible prior to conversion.



Again, I haven't read the book, but we also have to consider rehabilitated prison converts who live productive lives after finding (for lack of a better word) religion while in prison. What about the drug addict who's life gets cleaned up after converting? What about the non-religious intellectual who everyone thinks is too intelligent for religion, yet converts (like Peter Hitchens)?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"One of the commonalities I'm referring to is that the author Dr. Darrel Ray is an atheist-activist. The book I can tell is not unbiased by any stretch of the imagination."

So, in the world's mix of theists, agnostics, and atheists, exactly who is unbiased? Do you believe a minister preaching from the podium is unbiased?

"Atheist-activists (or anti-theist activists) are quite aggressive in their campaigns to limit religious activity in countries like the U.S. and Britain."

Nonsense. I've never heard an atheist insist that government should make atheist displays or teach bullshite creation theories in schools. They simply want theism OUT of secular governments -- like the US and Britain.

"And although as far as I can tell the term was not quoted by himself, the term Bible-thumper/thumping is most certainly a pejorative. One cannot use the term Bible-Thumper, and expect to come across as objective, neutral, etc."

As you seem to suggest, the term wasn't Dr. Ray's, but the book reviewer's.

"As far as referring to mainly Abrahamic religion due to having a more western perspective, I don't agree. Eastern religion has a strong presence in the U.S. equal to Islam, if not stronger."

You seem to forget all about Jews and Christians here.

"Particularly if we include New Age religions. Islam may be the fastest growing religion in America, but that doesn't mean it's surpassed other Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Many also make the argument that Buddhism in particular is not a religion."

If there's a point here, I've missed it. Anyway, Dr. Ray doesn't overlook Eastern or New Age religions.

"Those ironies are not really that ironic when digging deeper into the issues, because usually what is addressed is cultural Christianity as opposed to practiced Christianity. And there's all types of manipulated references to atheism being superior to (for the lack of a better term) religion."

It's not atheism that's better than religion. What's better are rationality and the scientific method. Science has brought us numerous advancements, cures for diseases, taken us to the moon. Science is responsible for the computers we're now using to debate these issues. You'll find none of these things in ancient religious texts. If not for our intellect and critical-thinking abilities, we'd still be living on the African savanna, scavenging off the bones left by carnivores.

What advancement has the Bible brought to mankind in the last 2,000 years? Does it contain any divine instructions for use of electricity, building an airplane, surgical techniques? Anything at all that wasn't already known to the people alive when it was written? Not only did religion not advance humankind, but after the fall of Rome is sent Europe into the Dark Ages for a thousand years. Do you realize that if Christianity hasn't spread like a plague throughout the West, our science and technology would probably be a thousand years more advanced than it is now?

"For instance, some of these atheist-activist groups will claim that atheist nations are more peaceful than religious or Christian nations."

I don't know of any atheist nations, unless you mean classic Communist ones, where political ideology substitutes for religion. Otherwise, there are secular nations, like the US and Britain, and theocratic ones, like Iran.

"They also make claims that atheists are more knowledgeable of the Bible than Christians, or many Christians."

I believe that hardly anyone has read the Bible as much as those of us who have left Christianity. We do so, if not before, in a last desperate effort to find consistency, sense, and humanity where little exists. I've matched Bible verse with many a Christian and have hardly ever come up short.

Anyway, in this day when the Bible is readily available on line, what difference does it make? We can look it all up in a few minutes -- including the inconvenient parts that the clergy like to overlook when reading from the pulpit. (Like Jesus' views on divorce, for instance.)

"What about the non-religious intellectual who everyone thinks is too intelligent for religion, yet converts (like Peter Hitchens)?"

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The book is supported by citations to numerous studies and surveys, which yield ironic results. It turns out that rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, and porn usage are highest in the Bible Belt states of the US and among self-described religious people;

This I believe, and I flog that belief often.

and that adultery, child physical and sexual abuse are higher than average amongst the devout and members of the clergy.

This is more difficult to swallow. For the clergy, I do not believe its true. My understanding of child sexual abuse in particular paints low rates for clergy compared to say TEACHERS for example. And let us remember that adultery and child physical and sexual abuse are things people hide. Any statistics will reflect those who got caught, not those actually doing it. I can think of several reasons why church goers might get caught more. If you want to find a nibby, nosy SOB, go to church.

Next, and people are going to hate me for this, but not all that transpires is child physical and sexual abuse anyway. I was beaten with whippy branches by my grandmother occaisionally and my aunt showed me porn when I was a kid, but I INSIST I was not abused while some other people will INSIST I was.

And who is going to confess adultery for feeling intense guilt about it? A religious person. I am not religious. I feel zero guilt about it or need to confess. In fact, I view what some would call my adultery as normal and natural. I feel strange just defining it as adultery. Its not adultery! Its my private sex life! And so if someone is going to get outed for adultery, its not going to be someone like me. I keep this secret well, feeling no guilt.

 

[BrianLewis]

It's not atheism that's better than religion. What's better are rationality and the scientific method. Science has brought us numerous advancements, cures for diseases, taken us to the moon. Science is responsible for the computers we're now using to debate these issues. You'll find none of these things in ancient religious texts. If not for our intellect and critical-thinking abilities, we'd still be living on the African savanna, scavenging off the bones left by carnivores.

Science taught us ethics, morality and charity? Your saying that religion denies technological advancement, yet you deny those things that lead to ethical standards. A true human being could easily embrace both if they tried.

I believe that hardly anyone has read the Bible as much as those of us who have left Christianity. We do so, if not before, in a last desperate effort to find consistency, sense, and humanity where little exists. I've matched Bible verse with many a Christian and have hardly ever come up short.

Anyway, in this day when the Bible is readily available on line, what difference does it make? We can look it all up in a few minutes -- including the inconvenient parts that the clergy like to overlook when reading from the pulpit. (Like Jesus' views on divorce, for instance.)

That's an assumption. Everyone's character is different. Some people can see only what they have been told, and don't endeavor to find their own actualization of truth. Some read the words and can't comprehend when there are mistranslations or duality of meanings. Some just read an incredibly bad version because they can't get use to old English. I do have to say that anyone can publish online, whether they do a good job of it or not is left up to chance. I would not trust online documents when it comes to anything important to my life. You can debate the Bible all you want, however if you don't take it back to the original languages, you can't possibly comprehend the actual meaning to a satisfactory level. Therefore, your debates might be convincing to only those that have a superficial knowledge of the book.

and that adultery, child physical and sexual abuse are higher than average amongst the devout and members of the clergy.

I have noticed that being a theme from Catholic communities. Perhaps you could even call that a curse to some degree. It would be interesting to find out the reasons for such a thing. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is a religious thing, since it seems to be focused mostly in Catholic nations in my experience.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Oh my, it's not just Catholics. Take a look at StopBaptistPredators.org.

Zorro: ditto.

"Science taught us ethics, morality and charity? Your saying that religion denies technological advancement, yet you deny those things that lead to ethical standards. A true human being could easily embrace both if they tried."

Religion doesn't teach us those things either. Human cultures share to a remarkable degree ethics, morality, and charity everywhere. Prohibitions against theft, murder. Expectations for helping the less fortunate. Being honest to each other. These things result from the fact that we're intelligent, social beings. These rules must exist. We have to respect each other's rights to cooperate and live as a group, which we must do to survive. Those who don't follow the rules and help their neighbors tend to become social, if not literal, outcasts.

The one notable exception I can think of has to do with sex. Many of the world's principal religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) enforce a morality of sexual guilt and repression of women. For decades, going back at least to Margaret Mead's studies of native Samoans, anthropology has documented that this type of sexual morality is not universal among humans. Traditional hunter-gatherer groups tend to show different sexual mores, with much fewer prohibitions on premarital and extra-marital sex, especially for women.

One of Dr. Ray's more interesting claims is that the modern-type sexual morality most of us have grown up with only dates back about 10,000 years, with the rise of agriculture. Suddenly, the concepts of power, property, and wealth became important. Along with the desire to control other people, especially women.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Ditto to you for the most part as well Roland. But I do have two small things to point out. While prohibitions against murder and theft are very, very common and span across different religions and therefore cannot be blamed on religion, there are some cultures that have very different definitions of them and for some, either one could be honorable acts. I especially think of some Native American tribes when I say that.

And while sexual morality is not universal as well, and nor can it be said there was none before religion, I have to doubt some claims there about Dr. Ray's beliefs on the effect of agriculture on society. We have too much of a pecking order to not think its innate, like in wolf packs. But I am not sure if you believe those claims or if you are just stating them neutrally.

And while there is a sub-group in China where the women are the property owners and leaders of their society, its an extreme rarity in the world.

But yeah, the idea that we would not have morality, ethics and charity without religion is a dream. You would be hard pressed to find any of those spelled out by ancient Greek religion. But yet they had them all.

My understanding is that the chief contribution to morality and ethics of Christianity is the concept of good and evil. To the Greeks, most things were just a bunch of stuff that happened. So they had morals and ethics, they were just a lot different than ours.

And the concept of good and evil is not always helpful either. A lot of people and things get defined as good and evil unfairly, as one is labeled "good" without sufficient merit and those opposing them get labeled "evil". Che Guevara is a good example. Not to say he was perfect or knew better, but he was not corrupt like those he opposed and our government supported and labeled "good".

 

[BrianLewis]

I find it interesting that a "Dr." would stoop to using loaded language. Does he want to be viewed as professional, or to be sensational? You can't really do both effectively.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Yeah, it's a book written for lay-people, not a scholarly or trade work published for the psychology profession.

Lots of people with MDs or PhDs write books for laymen. I probably couldn't understand any other kind.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I was thinking that the title "The God Fungus" might be more apt. Sort of like passing on athlete's foot.

 

[AquaLung]

So, in the world's mix of theists, agnostics, and atheists, exactly who is unbiased? Do you believe a minister preaching from the podium is unbiased?

I think everyone will have a certain level of bias, yes. But I don't think an atheist is necessarily biased against religion, just because he is an atheist. His/her bias could be something along the lines of having a bias over a particular car manufacturer because their ancestor was the company's founder. I have found that there are atheists who don't seem to have any profound negative thoughts towards religion. They just, for A or B reason, don't believe that God/a god exists. What's typical about this book (again, fully admitting I haven't read it), is the all too common theme of someone with a bad church experience growing up, and becoming an atheist activist.



Nonsense. I've never heard an atheist insist that government should make atheist displays or teach bullshite creation theories in schools. They simply want theism OUT of secular governments -- like the US and Britain.

For one, these atheist activist groups seek to remove displays that are a part of American history. They also will do things like take high school cheerleaders to court for putting Biblical scripture on signs during football games (this happened in Texas). And although they don't seek to put up displays promoting an atheist state, they have put signs along the freeway mostly addressing angst against Christianity. They have a right to do that via freedom of speech, but so do high school cheerleaders who wish to put scriptures on signs during football games.

As far as theism OUT of secular governments, what exactly do you think that means? Do you think this was what our Founding Fathers wanted? Do you think these atheist activists are in line with our American Founding Fathers?

One of my problems with Evolution, is a certain lack of honesty among it's proponents. This would include sort of subtle propaganda I guess I could say, as well as holding back facts. I have to place an * by the term honestly because I think there's a lack of confronting the evolutionists.



You seem to forget all about Jews and Christians here.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't forgotten about Jews and Christians (their large presence in the U.S.). I merely pointed out that Buddhists and Hindus have a strong presence as well.


If there's a point here, I've missed it. Anyway, Dr. Ray doesn't overlook Eastern or New Age religions.

Okay. Do you mind giving me a brief synopsis of what he says about Eastern and New Age religions? We already have a good idea of what he says about Christianity.


It's not atheism that's better than religion. What's better are rationality and the scientific method. Science has brought us numerous advancements, cures for diseases, taken us to the moon. Science is responsible for the computers we're now using to debate these issues. You'll find none of these things in ancient religious texts. If not for our intellect and critical-thinking abilities, we'd still be living on the African savanna, scavenging off the bones left by carnivores.

The Bible doesn't claim to be a science book. This is sort of like complaining about a cookbook because it doesn't help in fixing the engine in your car. And of course if we didn't have intellect we would still be scavenging. What does this have to do with religious texts?

What advancement has the Bible brought to mankind in the last 2,000 years? Does it contain any divine instructions for use of electricity, building an airplane, surgical techniques? Anything at all that wasn't already known to the people alive when it was written? Not only did religion not advance humankind, but after the fall of Rome is sent Europe into the Dark Ages for a thousand years. Do you realize that if Christianity hasn't spread like a plague throughout the West, our science and technology would probably be a thousand years more advanced than it is now?

On the contrary, there was a lack of Bibles available to the common man back in the Dark Ages. Your average person had no clue what the Bible said other than what they were told by religious piety, which was often wrong, and meant to exploit. It was even a crime for commoners to have a Bible in their possession. Exactly what evidence do you have to this claim?


I don't know of any atheist nations, unless you mean classic Communist ones, where political ideology substitutes for religion. Otherwise, there are secular nations, like the US and Britain, and theocratic ones, like Iran.


That was my point. Some countries like New Zealand that have not historically been active in war have been falsely classified as atheist nations by certain people in atheist activist groups.


I believe that hardly anyone has read the Bible as much as those of us who have left Christianity. We do so, if not before, in a last desperate effort to find consistency, sense, and humanity where little exists. I've matched Bible verse with many a Christian and have hardly ever come up short.

I think this is more wishful thinking than anything else. Where's your evidence? As far as matching verses, are you talking about memorization, or understanding?

Anyway, in this day when the Bible is readily available on line, what difference does it make? We can look it all up in a few minutes -- including the inconvenient parts that the clergy like to overlook when reading from the pulpit. (Like Jesus' views on divorce, for instance.)

I suppose we could do the same with science books. I'm not sure what your point is though.


Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I think my comment brings up interesting questions. Does this view on religion exist only because one doesn't see evidence of God existing, and would make a complete change if somehow God was revealed to them? Or if they found that God existed, even if He created us He would be inferior to us because He only gave us religion, and we advanced on our own?

 

[AquaLung]

And the concept of good and evil is not always helpful either. A lot of people and things get defined as good and evil unfairly, as one is labeled "good" without sufficient merit and those opposing them get labeled "evil". Che Guevara is a good example. Not to say he was perfect or knew better, but he was not corrupt like those he opposed and our government supported and labeled "good".

Interesting statement. And I agree.

I'm a Christian, but I don't deny a dark side within the Christian realm, modern or historical. There does exist this idea that some are better than others because of what they do or don't do. I think if there was a greater understanding of what scripture really reveals, I think far more care would be taken as far as labeling individuals or groups as being bad. And being careful about labeling who is/are good with the intent of exalting them over others.

 

[BrianLewis]

I think everyone will have a certain level of bias, yes. But I don't think an atheist is necessarily biased against religion, just because he is an atheist. His/her bias could be something along the lines of having a bias over a particular car manufacturer because their ancestor was the company's founder. I have found that there are atheists who don't seem to have any profound negative thoughts towards religion. They just, for A or B reason, don't believe that God/a god exists. What's typical about this book (again, fully admitting I haven't read it), is the all too common theme of someone with a bad church experience growing up, and becoming an atheist activist.

I can't say I have ever met an athiest that did not feel the need to belittle those with faith. Usually with jokes, but sometimes with bumper stickers. I have never met one that actually respected another person's point of view and kept their mouth shut. So, I can't say I have ever met one without an agenda. I suppose the obvious opposition would be to point out how zealous many Christians are to share their opinion. I, however, do not talk about it until someone seriously asks me, or posts threads with some serious Christian bashing going on.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Interesting statement. And I agree.

I'm a Christian, but I don't deny a dark side within the Christian realm, modern or historical. There does exist this idea that some are better than others because of what they do or don't do. I think if there was a greater understanding of what scripture really reveals, I think far more care would be taken as far as labeling individuals or groups as being bad. And being careful about labeling who is/are good with the intent of exalting them over others.

Very well said. I actually did not expect anyone to understand what I wrote, and party for my own inability to prove more and better examples. But you got it and made valuable points as well!

There does indeed seem to be a rush among many to use religion to put others down for the purpose of raising themselves up.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I can't say I have ever met an athiest that did not feel the need to belittle those with faith. Usually with jokes, but sometimes with bumper stickers. I have never met one that actually respected another person's point of view and kept their mouth shut. So, I can't say I have ever met one without an agenda. I suppose the obvious opposition would be to point out how zealous many Christians are to share their opinion. I, however, do not talk about it until someone seriously asks me, or posts threads with some serious Christian bashing going on.

Well, maybe you have but you just didn't realize it because they weren't acting in a way that made it obvious they were an atheist. Anyway, guess I've broken that streak because I am one of them! Nice to meet you BrianLewis, lol.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I can't say I have ever met an athiest that did not feel the need to belittle those with faith. Usually with jokes, but sometimes with bumper stickers. I have never met one that actually respected another person's point of view and kept their mouth shut.

Respecting people's opinion seems to be out of vogue with nearly all groups, not just atheists.

But I don't think a discussion can get too far if we were to respect a person's opinion that he believes in what we view as an imaginary friend. I am not sure what this "respect" would entail, but I have a feeling it would render the discussion utterly pointless and fruitless.

And while in the past it might have been practically true that just letting people believe caused no harm, as the microscope magnifies more and more people are starting to think that there is harm. Of course that is not helped by the religious themselves going after things like Evolutionary Theory and claiming that dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us. When you are blocking progress and knowledge for the sake of superstition, some people are bound to get a little peeved.

 

[Mars Man]

Should probably slap myself upside the head while bitting my tongue for even allowing myself to be opening a 'post comment' box, but...

What advancement has the Bible brought to mankind in the last 2,000 years?

While I reason that it's a good question, and one which has been, and needs to be, asked, the quest would not seem to come up totally without some positive tokens. Although, that would not to be saying that the documents which became what we today call the 'Bible,' in and of themselves, have really done so much; other than potential priming.

I believe that hardly anyone has read the Bible as much as those of us who have left Christianity.

Yep, I tend to get the same thing coming in my ears from other quarters, too. (And not just by atheists or agnostics, mind you.) Of course, as stated above, in the thread, in reply to this general quote immediately above, just reading a given, or a number of given, version, or translation in English, is not going to quite do the job. One really has to go back to the original tongues, and the aparati given for cross-referencing available mss. and papyri. A good check, nevertheless, across a number of translations, gives us a pretty good picture of the original for most purposes--provided we temper that with some details of language 'loss in translation' that happens.

 

[Tamayo]

Religion isn't a negative thing unless it's placed in the hands of idiots, which is why this is a question in the first place. You should be far more concerned about the people than the religion.

 

[Mars Man]

A suggestion for all, if I may, here. I will always emphsize, with concern, that we will find much better, pragmatic results, in signifying a difference in the sense of the common noun, 'religion,' and maintaining easy identification of that in our communicative exchanges. It is a great barrier in better understanding and smooth communication--as I have learned--and carelessness is even reflected in those who publish, or take it upon themselves to reach out to, or instruct and inform, the public at large.

An etymological treatise on the term gives us no pragmatic tool; it furthers no greater usefulness than mere information to have on hand, for no other avail. We can thus set that aside with no loss whatsoever. Regardless of which particular usage may have developed firstly, we generally have two that we must be careful to distinguish between. One, is 'religion' as the collective, uncountable noun which signifies whatever it takes emotionally expressed to represent an objective notion of that emotion itself. In this mode, it has a number of sub-senses. The other, is 'religion' as the distinguishable, countable noun which signifies an identified system of a systematic code and structured belief. This mode only gives us one sense.

When we are using the term 'religion' in the latter mode, we must make every effort to follow standard, better grammatical rules and patterns. For example, there will always be an article, or a 'stand-in' for one, before the word 'religion,' and when in plural usage, must take the plural form. (Hinduism is a religion which primarily started in the region now known as India. Japan essentially practices, in various ways, three religions.)

However, most unfortunately, much misusage has been allowed to creep in. We'll find it in many examples, by those in philosophical circles (they have to lean back on the classics to too high a degree) and by a number of general 'public figures' (thinking of a quib by Dr. Grey on BBC4 [if I have this title correct] a year back). The better examples of careful use, as we might tend to understand, is found in works by those in academically based literature and comparative religion societys and circles.

As for myself--and, as should be obvious, what I recommend to all--is to help the clarification, by adjustment of the countable noun usage, as follows: a religious belief system. In most cases, the insertion of the modifying 'theist-involved' will help (since other than Siddhartha's first philosophical treatises, most religious belief systems do involve gods and goddesses). We will then find, that a statement such as, 'I think religion is a good thing,' is not talking about any single, particular religious belief system, but is talking about that emotional element of the Homo sapiens which gave rise to such as religious belief systems.

Therefore to offer opinon on the above quote, in part, religion can be both negative and positive, however relgion is only a human social function, so its positive or negative aspects may boil down to there simply being that potential in the human creators (so to speak) of such. Perhaps more can be said later, I have to run now.

 

[Hezam]

I have to run now.

*chases*
Well said Mars Man

 

[Mars Man]

*chases*
Well said Mars Man

And thank YOU !, Hezam. An interesting thought did occur to me though. Might it better be seen as "I' doing the chasing, or, 'I' being the chased? I wonder. However, all that I can see, within the perspective and possible range of vision I do have, is that I am running. Might I be like a brave mouse on the thread mill in some experimenters lab? Who knows... Thanks again, Hezam, for your care and concern.

 

[AquaLung]

I can't say I have ever met an athiest that did not feel the need to belittle those with faith. Usually with jokes, but sometimes with bumper stickers. I have never met one that actually respected another person's point of view and kept their mouth shut. So, I can't say I have ever met one without an agenda. I suppose the obvious opposition would be to point out how zealous many Christians are to share their opinion. I, however, do not talk about it until someone seriously asks me, or posts threads with some serious Christian bashing going on.

From my experience, atheists express their sentiments about God in a fairly wide variety of ways. Of course what they ultimately think we can't really know. But there does seem to be those who don't wear their atheism as an anti-theistic statement. They just for A or B reason, don't believe God, or don't know if God exists (keeping the atheism/agnosticism issue in mind). And the other extreme is the activist anti-theist who will take high school cheerleaders to court for putting Bible verses on signs.
Before I became a Christian, there were a few that I mocked (more in a subtle fashion); but it was more who I was addressing as opposed to what I was addressing. It depended on the individual giving me the message. There were times where a minister would tell me about Christianity (like a weekend in jail), where I respected the fact that someone showed concern (and may have felt bad for the guy for the negative comments he took from the person in the other cell just prior). The message of the Gospel didn't invoke anger to where whoever presented it to me would come under fire. It was only particular individuals who would experience a counter-response from myself. And usually it was merely subtle, just wanting to irritate.