Thread: Natural Disasters (ie. Chile) =/= Religion

I am getting sick of people attributing every natural disaster to a religious purpose.

On any natural disaster video or article, you can find a response with a religious context. The most common ones are things like, "This is proof of God and of Jesus. Repent!" etc.

I think it is entirely disrespectful of religion to just step in to the most traumatic times and squeeze their beliefs in. It is entirely rude to exploit the deaths of others for your ideologies.

The world will rotate and shit will happen regardless if there is a God or not. Even a fundamentalist will say that, in a world without God, a lot of shit happens. Guess what? A lot of shit happens either way then.

Let me just exemplify why I find this so rude of religion;

Imagine your cousin died in a natural disaster.

You mourn and arrange a funeral.

At your funeral, religious people come to say, "Oh, your cousins death is the result of Jesus' second coming. Come to our church next."

Then, the funeral minister says, "This poor soul died in the name of Jesus. Let us all repent and give prayer to God for this child."

Then, we mention the death in public and another person of remotely religious intent would say, "Oh God bless us, the lord has taken him in the name of his second coming."

I am getting sick of deaths being exploited and violated for religious purposes.

I donate money to foundations to help people! NOT RELIGION!

I am sick of religions greedy bloody hands stealing money out of charities going for those in need!

I am sick of religious people standing at the feet of my dead loved ones and preaching to me!

I am sick of religious people pontificating that every mundane event, and every miraculous event, must prove God!

I am sick of religion denigrating research, education, and the individual rights of others!

Religion has been one of the most offensive things I have ever encountered! I cannot think of anything worse than explicit murder and rape! Except that some (arguably all) religions condone it!

If I can accomplish anything in life, it would be to add a brick into the wall of eternal imprisonment that religion deserves!

~

"Tell us how you really feel".

I think your outrage is fueled by your absolutist attitude. You fail to see that individuals do these things and instead blame all religion (not even just the religions held by the people doing it!) Anger and frustration come quickly in such a black and white world view. Your view is so one sided that you've been able to convince yourself that all religions condone rape and murder. Can you really not see how ridiculous that statement is? Why is it that you are allowed to be an individual who believes and acts for yourself but all people who follow religion are necessarily acting in concert and therefore must all believe and act the same? How is your belief different from the belief that all atheists promote genocide because Stalin or Mao did?

Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people.

What makes me want to smack people is when a child is found alive under rubble after a week and they declare it a 'miracle'.

It's the most idiotic, retarded thing I've ever heard. If I went into a large building and sealed all of the exists before shooting everybody inside save for one child who was there with his parents, I guess that would make me a benevolent miracle worker too.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think your outrage is fueled by your absolutist attitude.

You seem quick to be prejudice.

You fail to see that individuals do these things and instead blame all religion (not even just the religions held by the people doing it!) Anger and frustration come quickly in such a black and white world view. Your view is so one sided that you've been able to convince yourself that all religions condone rape and murder.

Of course I do not think that all religions condone it. Many do, arguably all. This is why I said that. Please do not exaggerate something I am not meaning to argue at all.

If you are so certain that my view is one sided; please, do tell me, what is my view? I am not so sure what it is that I am expressing here other than rude integration of ideologies when they are unnecessary.

Can you really not see how ridiculous that statement is? Why is it that you are allowed to be an individual who believes and acts for yourself but all people who follow religion are necessarily acting in concert and therefore must all believe and act the same?

Oh? Do you think it would be appropriate if I come to your funeral and preach my beliefs that are not yours?

Do you condone pontificating opposing beliefs unto others at inappropriate times? What reasonable good is there in this?

How is your belief different from the belief that all atheists promote genocide because Stalin or Mao did?

I see, so you are prejudice.

If you knew anything about me, before making such statements, you'd know that I have labelled myself an Atheist only implicitly of my appropriate label of Humanistic Existentialist.

First of all, Stalin or Mao did not do those things because they were Atheist.

Secondly, even if you somehow show that they did, I am a Humanist. There is no context that Humanism would ever promote such atrocities. I challenge you to demonstrate it.

Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people.

Those people act under a religion. Their individuality is null and void. Any individual discretions will be directed to a "more qualified" debator.

You think I have not taken it upon myself to speak with these people? Do you think I am a person that avoids debate? Truly now?

What do you think these people say when I, even politely, ask them to take their preaching elsewhere?

Please, be more insightful and less prejudice.

~

"Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people."

I'm sorry but can you explain the logic behind such a statement. I don't just blame Hitler for the treatment of minorities in Nazi Germany, I blame the Nazi ideology. Surely you do the same?

I think, that if we put our minds to it, we can use your argument for everything. War fuelled by imperialism; blame people. Yes, but also blame the system that suggests that some races are superior to others.

Originally Posted by imran_p

"Religion has done none of the things you named. People may have done those things. You should take it up with those people."

I'm sorry but can you explain the logic behind such a statement. I don't just blame Hitler for the treatment of minorities in Nazi Germany, I blame the Nazi ideology. Surely you do the same?

I think, that if we put our minds to it, we can use your argument for everything. War fuelled by imperialism; blame people. Yes, but also blame the system that suggests that some races are superior to others.

Please name the religious system that advocates;

stealing money out of charities going for those in need

denigrating research, education, and the individual rights of others

explicit murder and rape

pontificating that every mundane event, and every miraculous event, must prove God

If you ever come across such a religious system, the next step would be to realize that even this fancifully absurd religion still does not represent all of religion.

If we were to properly apply your analogy, then we should say that we shouldn't be blaming Hitler for the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we should be blaming All Government.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You seem quick to be prejudice.



Of course I do not think that all religions condone it. Many do, arguably all. This is why I said that. Please do not exaggerate something I am not meaning to argue at all.

If you are so certain that my view is one sided; please, do tell me, what is my view? I am not so sure what it is that I am expressing here other than rude integration of ideologies when they are unnecessary.



Oh? Do you think it would be appropriate if I come to your funeral and preach my beliefs that are not yours?

Do you condone pontificating opposing beliefs unto others at inappropriate times? What reasonable good is there in this?



I see, so you are prejudice.

If you knew anything about me, before making such statements, you'd know that I have labelled myself an Atheist only implicitly of my appropriate label of Humanistic Existentialist.

First of all, Stalin or Mao did not do those things because they were Atheist.

Secondly, even if you somehow show that they did, I am a Humanist. There is no context that Humanism would ever promote such atrocities. I challenge you to demonstrate it.



Those people act under a religion. Their individuality is null and void. Any individual discretions will be directed to a "more qualified" debator.

You think I have not taken it upon myself to speak with these people? Do you think I am a person that avoids debate? Truly now?

What do you think these people say when I, even politely, ask them to take their preaching elsewhere?

Please, be more insightful and less prejudice.

~

O'nus, I'm not going to break down your post. I know where that leads. I do not hold a prejudiced opinion of you. I hold an opinion that has taken years to develop. Whats more, you made it perfectly clear what type of person you are by stating that it is arguable that All Religions condone Rape and Murder. Perhaps some do, but to say that it is arguable that all do... all I can say is, try. Try to argue that point and we shall see if it is arguable.

I made the reference to Stalin and Mao to show how ridiculous you are being, not to compare you personally to people who have committed genocide.

I think it is incredibly rude for someone to try to force their beliefs onto someone else. I think it is heartless and selfish to try to turn tragedy to one's own ends. I think it is irresponsible and lazy to leave the events around oneself up to god; to say "this good happened because of god" or "this bad happened because of god". I believe a lot of the same things you do.

I just don't try to lump roughly 80% of the population of the entire Earth into one category and then come up with a list of shit that they are all supposedly doing. I recognize that there are different religions with different beliefs, different adherents, different interpretations, different ideologies, and many many many different people who each act differently when representing their own particular religion.

I have to say that I am nothing more than disappointed that you would choose to believe that all of religion does these things that you don't like and then have the audacity to call me prejudiced. For you to essentially call me a rapist and a murderer, or at least arguably someone who condones those things because I am religious and then ask me to be more insightful and less prejudiced. I believe that is when you crossed the line between someone I have respectfully disagreed with for several years now and someone I no longer have any time for.

Think I'll go find one of those videos and remind everyone that this is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As a Christian, I don't see God in natural disasters on Earth. I see him when he comforts the families and accepts their beloved into Heaven. You know what I mean?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

O'nus, I'm not going to break down your post. I know where that leads. I do not hold a prejudiced opinion of you. I hold an opinion that has taken years to develop. Whats more, you made it perfectly clear what type of person you are by stating that it is arguable that All Religions condone Rape and Murder. Perhaps some do, but to say that it is arguable that all do... all I can say is, try. Try to argue that point and we shall see if it is arguable.

I made the reference to Stalin and Mao to show how ridiculous you are being, not to compare you personally to people who have committed genocide.

Now I am not going to say that I cleverly left bait to prove another point, but I am going to say this; I am willing to admit I said something wrong.

I do not think that all religions condone rape and murder. I was wrong in saying that.

I could try to argue that the bible does condone it in some instances, in some contexts, and even that sexism is prevalent in many scriptures. But that is not necessary, is it?

Also, I am able to admit my wrong statement and still maintain my argument.

If you knew me, I would think you would know that I am one to apologize when appropriate. Also, you ought to know that I would not deliberately say something like that without purpose.

How many times have you heard a religion admit being wrong? Just curious.

I think it is incredibly rude for someone to try to force their beliefs onto someone else. I think it is heartless and selfish to try to turn tragedy to one's own ends. I think it is irresponsible and lazy to leave the events around oneself up to god; to say "this good happened because of god" or "this bad happened because of god". I believe a lot of the same things you do.

I just don't try to lump roughly 80% of the population of the entire Earth into one category and then come up with a list of shit that they are all supposedly doing. I recognize that there are different religions with different beliefs, different adherents, different interpretations, different ideologies, and many many many different people who each act differently when representing their own particular religion.

Every ideology, no matter what, is somewhat humanistic. Why not remove the dogmatic attachments and stay with humanism? Why are we quarreling over things we do not know of? Why are they invading all contexts? Why is it so invasive to politics, economy, and education?

Do you truly think that religion is not present in politics, economy, and education?

I have to say that I am nothing more than disappointed that you would choose to believe that all of religion does these things that you don't like and then have the audacity to call me prejudiced. For you to essentially call me a rapist and a murderer, or at least arguably someone who condones those things because I am religious and then ask me to be more insightful and less prejudiced. I believe that is when you crossed the line between someone I have respectfully disagreed with for several years now and someone I no longer have any time for.

I noticed that you are still taking it out of context anyway.

What of the others things I have said?

I am just curious how it would be bad to pontificate my belief system onto others?

Of course, if I say it that way, I must be wrong, right? I must be an absolutist?

Tell me how it is wrong to be an absolute humanist in respect to human interaction.

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

As a Christian, I don't see God in natural disasters on Earth. I see him when he comforts the families and accepts their beloved into Heaven. You know what I mean?

That's reasonable. I have no complaints about that. Thank you for your respectful comment. (Seriously)

Originally Posted by really

O'nus I respect your views and frustration on religion but I don't think religion is actually the source of the problem you describe. It is really that subtle naivete that inherently encompasses all humanity: the human condition. We can attribute these attitudes and reasonings with tendencies of human consciousness rather than simply blaming it on "religion."

You are right. I do think religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics. Any good that is within religion can easily exist without it. I openly challenge a good to be named that cannot be done without religion.

In agreement with Xaqaria, not all followers of any one religion act, think or even necessarily believe in the "same religion" as each other, however what you're describing I believe comes from a general human circumstance that just happens to be riddled with gross distortions. It is not really religion's fault for manipulative religious attitudes, zealotry or theatrics, and what I think is needed is merely forgiveness for the people who employ them.

I think you are right. I am happy to see your comments here.

Humans are necessarily selfish beings and, in any context, their ideologies will become integrated. Often, of course, for selfish purposes.

Am I mistaken in thinking that humans have the capability to supersede these susceptible characteristics and interact more humane?

Originally Posted by imran_p

I think the argument is that religion undoubtedly has the ability to inspire all of these things and has proven that time and time again. No-one is claiming that individual religious people are guilty of all these actions, but it is fairly obvious that religions as systems have the ability to inspire a great deal of evil; and more often than not, they do.

Exactly.

~

You cannot maintain your argument, O'nus. It is based entirely on false premises. Presenting Christian Scripture that condones rape would not be necessary because it would not prove anything. Not only is The Christian Religion not synonymous with Christian Scripture, it is also not synonymous with Religion.

A religion cannot "admit being wrong", it can only change its position through the actions of key religious figures. The pope has changed the Catholic Church's position on a countless number of topics. The Dalai Lama has implemented the inclusion of scientific disciplines in Buddhist teaching. New Religions have formed based on modern ideas and old religions have died when they have become obsolete. These are the ways that "religion admits being wrong".

You keep saying things like "Religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics". Religion doesn't do anything. It is not a willful entity. DuB made a post in another thread that refutes this better than I can so,

Originally Posted by imran_p

You don't agree that some world views, ideologies, take advantage of people with weak minds and almost bend them to their will?

Originally Posted by DuB

Of course I don't agree. Just listen to the language you're using: ideologies "take advantage" of people and "bend them to their will"? They are something that people "succumb to"? You'd think we were talking about a modern Machiavelli rather than something which has no objective existence. These are passive ideas with no possible causal powers; there is literally nothing to succumb to! The concept of Nazism did not reach down from the metaphysical ether and cause the Holocaust. The Holocaust was carried out by both of two kinds of people: sick individuals who chose to embrace a fittingly sick ideology, and people who were pressured, coerced, and forced by said sick individuals--not by the abstract set of ideas which is "Nazism."

I'd like to bring us closer to topic and point out that this is as true for religion as it is for any ideology.

Although I don't necessarily agree that religions have "no possible causal powers", they definitely do not manipulate or exploit. They are manipulated and exploited beyond question, but in themselves they are passive tools to be used by individual and social entities; and there is no such over arching structure as "Religion" that behaves in any sort of concerted way.

Your entire argument (and this could be said about many of your arguments pertaining to "religion") is a product of your inability to see the trees through the forest. As I said to Imran, your position is no different than one that would reject all government in order to do away with Nazism.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are right. I do think religion exploits and manipulates human characteristics. Any good that is within religion can easily exist without it. I openly challenge a good to be named that cannot be done without religion.

Where am I right? I said nothing of this. You obviously just don't see the advantage of religion, which is personal. Some people find it useful, while others don't. It's that simple. That doesn't ask that you blame religion and oversimplify that it is bad and doesn't need to exist.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you are right. I am happy to see your comments here.

Humans are necessarily selfish beings and, in any context, their ideologies will become integrated. Often, of course, for selfish purposes.

Am I mistaken in thinking that humans have the capability to supersede these susceptible characteristics and interact more humane?

You're mistaken if you think humans cannot interact more humane even with religion, and I doubt that is an unbiased view.