Judging religion

[Karinmo]

Recently, I have been becoming a more and more active atheist. In this I see quite a few atheists judging religion. Now I see nothing wrong with this, as long as it is respectful. (As respectful judging something can be.)

Religious people and non-religious people alike, tell me if you think there are things you are able to judge and things about religion you cannot judge. Please be respectful.

 

[Flushed]

I think it's natural to judge different religions (or lack thereof for that matter). I don't think there are certain aspects that are necessarily off limits, you just shouldn't vocalize your opinions past "I disagree with [x]", and even then, that's something you should still keep to yourself, I think.

 

[Monophobia]

I think it's okay as long as it's respectful (as said above) and doesn't go into anything personal or starts generalizing people.

Like, you can't say "all atheists are Satan's followers" or "Christians are idiots who believe in a sky fairy". Just keep it clean and debate-like if you're going to say something and/or argue about it.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I think the part that is frustrating, being an atheist, is that there are facts being uncovered in science that some religious people will reject as fiction because it contradicts their beliefs. I think as a society this is a very unhealthy thing to do.

For example, the big one evolution is not debatable: it has tonnes of scientific evidence to prove it has happened. The "theory" part of evolution revolves only around debate on exactly how it has happened over billions of years.

 

[The Void]

Stereotypes and first impression judgments are inevitable in any case. When I first encountered (LaFeyan) Satanism, I thought it had something to do with evilly sacrificing children and actually worshiping the devil, only to soon realize it was somewhat the opposite.

I think the best thing to do with these judgments is to clear them out with a follower of that belief, preferably a close friend. This is something I often do with my fellow Christians who are not Catholic.

I think the part that is frustrating, being an atheist, is that there are facts being uncovered in science that some religious people will reject as fiction because it contradicts their beliefs. I think as a society this is a very unhealthy thing to do.

For example, the big one evolution is not debatable: it has tonnes of scientific evidence to prove it has happened. The "theory" part of evolution revolves only around debate on exactly how it has happened over billions of years.

Sadly I know quite a lot of people, including my former geology and chemistry teacher in high school, who completely disregard evolution and the big bang theory as "mere assumptions" and nothing more.

 

[Kanzler]

Geology teacher? But he should be able to take geological records of fossils and radioactive decay seriously. Chemistry teacher? Probably has been exposed to biological chemistry over the years. I guess once a scientific concept gets into the way of religious creation, devout believers are tempted to disregard them. Yes, it is temptation. Ignorance is sloth of the mind, and sloth is a sin :O

I did a quick google search about passages concerning ignorance in the Bible, unfortunately, it seems that Christianity doesn't really put an emphasis on ignorance, shame really

 

[Blu·Ray]

I don't think that you should judge a religion. A religion is a purely personal belief that is as individual as one's morals and ethics values, and while various religions are portrayed as having a certain stance on particular points - like Islam being against gender equality and Christianity being against the theory of evolution or Big Bang - this is not entirely true as every Muslim can have their own adaptation of Islam and every Christian can have their own adaptation of Christianity.

This is why I don't think that we should judge a religion as a whole. We shouldn't say: "Islam is bad" or "Christianity is holding back progress" because it is not the religion, but rather some people who practice it that are doing these actions.

 

[Oryx]

I don't think that you should judge a religion. A religion is a purely personal belief that is as individual as one's morals and ethics values, and while various religions are portrayed as having a certain stance on particular points - like Islam being against gender equality and Christianity being against the theory of evolution or Big Bang - this is not entirely true as every Muslim can have their own adaptation of Islam and every Christian can have their own adaptation of Christianity.

This is why I don't think that we should judge a religion as a whole. We shouldn't say: "Islam is bad" or "Christianity is holding back progress" because it is not the religion, but rather some people who practice it that are doing these actions.

I agree with your premise but I think it leads to the opposite conclusion - we should only judge a religion as a whole. If we judge one individual we risk being wrong because they interpret things differently. However, we can judge the doctrine of a religion as a whole without judging any individual, and the doctrine remains regardless of how people interpret it. No matter what most Catholics believe, Catholicism has in its rules that masturbation is a mortal sin - that is, if you do it and don't confess before you die, you will go straight to hell, no backsies. You can criticize Catholicism for that doctrine while refusing to pass judgment on the individuals who likely do not believe that (many priests even disagree with that doctrine).

 

[Blu·Ray]

I agree with your premise but I think it leads to the opposite conclusion - we should only judge a religion as a whole. If we judge one individual we risk being wrong because they interpret things differently. However, we can judge the doctrine of a religion as a whole without judging any individual, and the doctrine remains regardless of how people interpret it. No matter what most Catholics believe, Catholicism has in its rules that masturbation is a mortal sin - that is, if you do it and don't confess before you die, you will go straight to hell, no backsies. You can criticize Catholicism for that doctrine while refusing to pass judgment on the individuals who likely do not believe that (many priests even disagree with that doctrine).

This creates some interesting perspective - I had not thought about it that way. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we should not judge a Catholic by the fact that they are a catholic because they might have a different interpretation of Catholicism. This, I believe, is entirely true. We should not judge a person based on his or her religion, but rather on their adaptation of said religion.

But I don't think that we should judge a religion on its followers. At least not on the select few extremists who are portrayed in the media. This is why I still believe that we shouldn't say: "Islam is bad" or "Christianity is holding back progress", because it is not the general Muslim population that are terrorists and want to kill the people who believe a different thing than they do. It is some of those select few that are portrayed in the media that are the terrorists.


Masturbation as a sin is in Catholicism a basic premise of the religion. This is something that I do believe we should judge, because this is a premise that is written in the very foundation of the religion. Also, we can totally criticize Catholicism for portraying homosexuality as a sin, but we cannot criticize the Catholic people for this. However, if we take a specific Catholic who believes this, we can criticize them their belief in the same way as we criticized the religion.

If we apply the same logic to Islam and terrorism, Islam as a religion should not be judged for being evil because Islam as a religion does not condone terrorism. We can in no way judge all Muslim people for being terrorists or supporting terrorists, because they all have their own personal belief. We can, however, judge an individual Muslim for being a terrorist if they are one, but it is important that we should not judge Islam for them being terrorists, but rather the individuals performing these terrible actions.

 

[twocows]

I think that would depend on what you mean by "judge."

I generally believe in "live and let live," provided there is no significant harm coming out of a belief. I don't think most religions are significantly harmful to society.

 

[Sopheria]

This creates some interesting perspective - I had not thought about it that way. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we should not judge a Catholic by the fact that they are a catholic because they might have a different interpretation of Catholicism. This, I believe, is entirely true. We should not judge a person based on his or her religion, but rather on their adaptation of said religion.

But I don't think that we should judge a religion on its followers. At least not on the select few extremists who are portrayed in the media. This is why I still believe that we shouldn't say: "Islam is bad" or "Christianity is holding back progress", because it is not the general Muslim population that are terrorists and want to kill the people who believe a different thing than they do. It is some of those select few that are portrayed in the media that are the terrorists.


Masturbation as a sin is in Catholicism a basic premise of the religion. This is something that I do believe we should judge, because this is a premise that is written in the very foundation of the religion. Also, we can totally criticize Catholicism for portraying homosexuality as a sin, but we cannot criticize the Catholic people for this. However, if we take a specific Catholic who believes this, we can criticize them their belief in the same way as we criticized the religion.

If we apply the same logic to Islam and terrorism, Islam as a religion should not be judged for being evil because Islam as a religion does not condone terrorism. We can in no way judge all Muslim people for being terrorists or supporting terrorists, because they all have their own personal belief. We can, however, judge an individual Muslim for being a terrorist if they are one, but it is important that we should not judge Islam for them being terrorists, but rather the individuals performing these terrible actions.

I agree that the individual should be blamed, but I don't agree that a religion can't be judged by its followers. Let's not forget that these aren't people who have a pre-disposition to terrorism or science denial. That is to say, if those people weren't Muslim or Christian, they probably wouldn't be committing acts of terror or impeding scientific advancement, respectively. I think religions should be judged by the overall effect that they have on society. And in my personal opinion, there's a lot of negative things present in society that wouldn't be present if there were no religion.

 

[Oryx]

I agree that the individual should be blamed, but I don't agree that a religion can't be judged by its followers. Let's not forget that these aren't people who have a pre-disposition to terrorism or science denial. That is to say, if those people weren't Muslim or Christian, they probably wouldn't be committing acts of terror or impeding scientific advancement, respectively. I think religions should be judged by the overall effect that they have on society. And in my personal opinion, there's a lot of negative things present in society that wouldn't be present if there were no religion.

I would tend to agree with "I think religions should be judge by the overall effect that they have on society," but I disagree with the implication that it's overall bad. For example, there are many, many hospitals that are religious and would not have existed without religion. The Catholic high school that I went to required service, while the local public school did not, so that's another thousand community service hours in my state every year just from my school alone, not including all the other local Catholic schools and the ones across the country and world. I don't feel comfortable making arguments for or against other religions, as I'm not as personally aware of their impact since the US is so heavily Christian, but you get the idea - it's not necessarily fair to judge religion solely on its negative impact. Everything has downsides, and you have to look at the good as well as the bad.

 

[Dakotah]

I personally judge religion to be nothing but silly nonsense, something people use to feel good about themselves or because they have a fear of death. But my personal opinion does not preclude me from having respect for people who are religious. Most of the things religious people believe leaves me scratching my head in wonderment, as in "how can you possibly believe that?" though I don't often say that unless confronted.

What I do openly, however, is criticize organized religion, especially for their hypocrisy and open persecution of minorities. I think any organization, whether it's religious or not, should be aggressively challenged on any policy or stance that would marginalize any segment of the population for being who they are.

Right now, for instance, in Texas, the GOP is working on their party platform, in that platform they've added a new position, one that supports reparative therapy to change the sexual orientation of a person who is gay. This position has its roots in religious bigotry and should rightly be challenged. Every credible medical organization and psychological organization has deemed reparative therapy to be potentially harmful. It can, and has, led to increased rates of suicide.

For someone to tell me then it is wrong to judge someone for their personal beliefs, when those beliefs have the potential to cause real harm, is simply ludicrous.

 

[Ritzy Cat]

Taken from the introduction to a synthesis essay on religion I wrote earlier this year...

"The evolution of religion began when prehistoric people began pondering, "Why does this happen?" They asked that question with everything they encountered. Why does the rain fall? Why does the sun rise? Why did this mushroom kill my friend? The people of the ancient world had no logical way to answer these questions. They did not have the technology or knowledge to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For lack of any real explanation, the prehistoric men and women conjured up gods and deities responsible for all of these affairs. Humans have a tendency to explain any unknown phenomenon with the supernatural, and that is exactly what they did. Religion developed out of the ancient pantheon of gods into the organized religions of the modern world. Religion, across the planet, required belief in Gods as a result of the uncertainty and spontaneity of the dangerous ancient world. With the development of the first civilizations came the usage of religion as a tool to subject the population to their demands. Since all religions claim to be true, there can be no real answer to the question of religion, other than the rejection of them all. The modern world is characterized by a doubt of religion, and trends show the global community moving away from religion and into the realm of human reality. These doubts stem from the nature of religion itself. The reasons why religion developed and how it was used by states to subjugate their populations are indicators of how all religions are fallacies."

 

[Oryx]

Taken from the introduction to a synthesis essay on religion I wrote earlier this year...

"The evolution of religion began when prehistoric people began pondering, "Why does this happen?" They asked that question with everything they encountered. Why does the rain fall? Why does the sun rise? Why did this mushroom kill my friend? The people of the ancient world had no logical way to answer these questions. They did not have the technology or knowledge to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For lack of any real explanation, the prehistoric men and women conjured up gods and deities responsible for all of these affairs. Humans have a tendency to explain any unknown phenomenon with the supernatural, and that is exactly what they did. Religion developed out of the ancient pantheon of gods into the organized religions of the modern world. Religion, across the planet, required belief in Gods as a result of the uncertainty and spontaneity of the dangerous ancient world. With the development of the first civilizations came the usage of religion as a tool to subject the population to their demands. Since all religions claim to be true, there can be no real answer to the question of religion, other than the rejection of them all. The modern world is characterized by a doubt of religion, and trends show the global community moving away from religion and into the realm of human reality. These doubts stem from the nature of religion itself. The reasons why religion developed and how it was used by states to subjugate their populations are indicators of how all religions are fallacies."

This doesn't really answer the ethical question posed in the OP or respond to any of the points brought up. How does this relate to the concept of people judging religion and people with particular religious beliefs?

 

[Ritzy Cat]

It makes more sense to judge religion in its histiographical development. We cannot blame the followers of the religion, let alone significant "extremist" minorities of religions because they were brought to be the way they were under the influence of a state or organization. The majority of the followers of religions are followers from a very young age, not converts. So, it would not make sense to judge individuals on their belief in religion because most of them did not really have a choice in what they were exposed to as a child. Thus, depending on the level of devoutness instituted in the family they were in, they became more or less resistance to atheist / nonreligious forces.

Religion developed in the ancient world as relatively "pure" religion, meaning it was free of the constructs of the states. Early supernatural beliefs in Mesopotamian pantheons, rome, greece etc. Then, states began to understand its societal power as a construct of the society and took advantage of that, using it to unite against threats both inside and outside of the state. The reasons by which religion developed makes it inherently untrue, but we can't call its followers liars or hypocrites. They had no choice in what type of supernatural deities they were exposed to.

 

[Oryx]

It makes more sense to judge religion in its histiographical development. We cannot blame the followers of the religion, let alone significant "extremist" minorities of religions because they were brought to be the way they were under the influence of a state or organization. The majority of the followers of religions are followers from a very young age, not converts. So, it would not make sense to judge individuals on their belief in religion because most of them did not really have a choice in what they were exposed to as a child. Thus, depending on the level of devoutness instituted in the family they were in, they became more or less resistance to atheist / nonreligious forces.

Religion developed in the ancient world as relatively "pure" religion, meaning it was free of the constructs of the states. Early supernatural beliefs in Mesopotamian pantheons, rome, greece etc. Then, states began to understand its societal power as a construct of the society and took advantage of that, using it to unite against threats both inside and outside of the state. The reasons by which religion developed makes it inherently untrue, but we can't call its followers liars or hypocrites. They had no choice in what type of supernatural deities they were exposed to.

I'm not sure you can argue that anyone raised in a certain context can never be judged for following the context if it's problematic. While youthful indiscretions based in religion can be passed over due to the lack of judgment in children and their reliance on social conditioning, I feel like once you reach a certain age you should be expected not to just "go with the flow" and do what you've always been doing. Some people choose not to think too hard about things, even if they're challenged - while it's a valid decision, I would judge it.

Although from your second paragraph you seem to be talking merely about someone believing in a god, not necessarily the things that stem from that belief. Do you believe, if someone murders for their god, they should not be judged for it because they went to religious services? Do you believe that people raised without religion are inherently more free than those that are?

 

[Ritzy Cat]

I'm not sure you can argue that anyone raised in a certain context can never be judged for following the context if it's problematic. While youthful indiscretions based in religion can be passed over due to the lack of judgment in children and their reliance on social conditioning, I feel like once you reach a certain age you should be expected not to just "go with the flow" and do what you've always been doing. Some people choose not to think too hard about things, even if they're challenged - while it's a valid decision, I would judge it.

Nobody is required to "go with the flow". But that is not accounting for the societal or cultural traditions of the society. It can be very scary for many people in the world to divert from normal behavior in their community. I'm not sure where you are from, but in most European / North American nations are more open to diverse religious beliefs. The case is not the same in the Middle East, Russia, Cuba, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Venezuela. Diversion from the prominent or state-endorsed religion or ideology can result in severe punishment in many areas of the world. Additionally, pressure from families or local communities will stop people from even considering leaving their "safe" bubble of their religion. While I do agree that people should consider their own path with religion, it's not as cut and dry as it seems. There are many more underlying factors to why one may choose to maintain or abandon their religion.

Religion brings one thing that many things cannot in a world like ours - certainty. It can provide a "go-to" for any religious believer, to resort to their God and ask him for help or miracles. Atheism is devoid of this certainty, so people are hesitant to abandon their religion. There is no force that is outside our world, that can be "contacted" for help when nothing else works. This is why states loved to use religion - they could oppress the populace at a higher level because the citizens would have God to fall back to for moral support. Thus, we can't judge individual followers. We can only judge the religion in a histiographical context. The reasons for why it developed, how it has been practiced and endorsed by the "leaders" of its religion, often with force, are the prime reasons as to why all religions are fallacies used to secure unity and subjugation.

Although from your second paragraph you seem to be talking merely about someone believing in a god, not necessarily the things that stem from that belief.

Not really. I was more talking about how ancient religion was more "pure". The ancient religion existed before states adopted their modern identities. Religion had not yet gone under the wing of the state. This old prehistoric religion was created by people so that they could provide certainty in a very uncertain world. Religion became "unpure" when states took it under its wing and used it to 'unite' its populace under a common cause, while also using it to bring its citizens to their knees.

To support my argument of uncertainty, Roman statesman Cato the Elder wrote in On Agriculture, "Father Mars, I beg and entreat you to be well disposed toward me and toward our house and household. I have ordered an offering of pigs, sheep and bulls ... on account of this request, so that you may prevent, ward off and remove sickness . . . and damage to crops and bad weather.... Preserve my shepherds and flocks unharmed and give good health and strength to me, my home, and our household. For this purpose . . . Father Mars . .. you shall be increased by these offerings of suckling pigs, sheep and bulls". Cato outlines a plea to Mars to bring good health to his (or the reader's) family and his crops. He places trust in Mars to ensure his prosperity. He relies on divine intervention to save his farm because him, along with everyone else in the ancient world, did not understand the inconspicuous reasons as to why crops may fail or bad weather be brought about. These were events that ancient people did not know anything about, and could not control or predict. Making sacrifices to a God would do two things, at least in the believer's mind. It would place the power to control the events in an abstract, supreme force that could control the outcome. Additionally, it would please this God, so that it would bring a favorable outcome to the one who realizes its presence and respects it.

While this is an example of the ancient world, modern religion still maintains a form of "certainty". You would notice that atheism is much more prevalent in highly developed countries than in undeveloped ones. According to a study done by Pew Research, In the United States, those who have identified as "unaffiliated" has been greatly increasing over the last few years, a 4.3% increase from 2007. In comparison, the number of Christianity followers in the USA has decreased by 5% since 2007. In the worlds' developed countries, religious growth is decreasing. As people have less children, parents do not pass on their religion as much, and higher levels of education are bringing more logical-minded people who are not fazed by the allure of religion. The reasons on which religion was based on are becoming obsolete. In contrast, the same pew research study said that 2.4% of Sub-Saharan Africans identified as nonreligious. This makes sense because the majority of the Sub-Saharan African countries are not very developed. They are still plagued by disease, civil war: characteristics of uncertainty that caused for the sustenance of religion in ancient times.

We cannot really judge people because they have unique circumstances that may have accounted for why they still believe in a God - regardless whether or not they contemplated "going their own way".

Do you believe, if someone murders for their god, they should not be judged for it because they went to religious services?

No.

Do you believe that people raised without religion are inherently more free than those that are?

Yes.

 

[wazaker123]

hello everyone! before I start my appeal I'll say, nice ideas everyone, u sure did make a stand, anyways my opinion are the following:

first: to know how to "Judge" is important cuz enables a person to know which is wrong and which right.

second: there is no good or bad judging on Religions, cuz its just a point of view of the judge, the only thing we can do is to make a fair one.(judging)

third: to make it happen, I think we should follow Oryx's point of view to judge it only after we completely understand it( to see it in all angles).. thats all..... ( Feel free to correct me Oryx if i misunderstood or edited what you posted earlier and im sorry to cite your name without your permission..) ill erase this if you want.

 

[£]

Okay. So I had a metaphor come to mind for this topic and I decided against posting until someone persuaded me to. tl;dr: religious views that are silly are fine imo if people just keep it personal and don't force it on other people.

don't read this spoiler unless you want to waste a minute of your life on a metaphor for the above. I warned you.

Spoiler:

[23:30:00] George Whittaker: saw a juding religion thread
[23:30:03] George Whittaker: *judging
[23:30:10] George Whittaker: had a gross comparison come to mind
[23:30:20] George Whittaker: decided nah not gonna post anything like that in D&D 8D
[23:30:32] Matt MacKenzie: do I want to know
[23:30:35] George Whittaker: not sure
[23:30:40] George Whittaker: you know the saying "religion is like a penis"
[23:31:03] Matt MacKenzie: there is absolutely no way
[23:31:05] Matt MacKenzie: that is a saying
[23:31:19] George Whittaker: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=religion is like a penis
[23:31:29] George Whittaker: 6.6 million google results
[23:31:31] George Whittaker: beg to differ
[23:31:35] Matt MacKenzie: gg
[23:32:01] George Whittaker: okay so
[23:32:06] George Whittaker: in my opinion
[23:32:10] George Whittaker: a very stupid religious belief
[23:32:23] George Whittaker: is like having a hobby of doing a helicopter dick dance or whatever
[23:32:26] George Whittaker: if you are doing it alone
[23:32:28] George Whittaker: nobody knows
[23:32:37] George Whittaker: people would still think it's really stupid
[23:32:39] George Whittaker: but nobody has to look
[23:32:42] Matt MacKenzie: lol'd
[23:32:43] George Whittaker: and nobody is bothered
[23:32:46] George Whittaker: so it's fine to do that
[23:33:05] George Whittaker: but professing your stupid opinions and beliefs onto other people that quite frankly don't want to hear it
[23:33:06] George Whittaker: is like going
[23:33:17] George Whittaker: HI LOOK AT ME MY DICK IS A HELICOPTER
[23:33:25] George Whittaker: to people that don't want to see you doing that
[23:33:53] George Whittaker: people who shout religious verses in busy cities
[23:34:02] Kitten: but it still might turn some people on so y'know
[23:34:04] George Whittaker: are essentially MY DICK IS A HELICOPTER people in my eyes
[23:34:05] George Whittaker: yes
[23:34:08] George Whittaker: some people are into that
[23:34:31] George Whittaker: but maybe they can just invite those people round and do it together with the fellow helicopter dick club people
[23:34:39] Matt MacKenzie: you should definitely post that
[23:34:45] George Whittaker: should I just spoiler this chat
[23:34:56] George Whittaker: and basically leave my comparison at that
[23:35:14] Matt MacKenzie: yes
[23:35:21] George Whittaker: k it's happening