What does it mean to "hate" religion?

[Darth Wong]

I am often told that I demonstrate a hatred for religion. I am curious what people mean when they say that someone "hates" religion. If someone accuses another person of racial hatred, the bar is set quite high: the other person must have done things like advocating deportation of other races, discrimination on the basis of race, or widespread generalizations such as "all blacks are stupid" (and in many cases, you can even say some of those things and still insist that you're not racist). But to the best of my knowledge, I never advocate deportation of religions, or discrimination on the basis of religion, nor do I say that all Christians are guilty of anything other than following what I consider to be a deeply flawed belief system.

So what does it mean to "hate" religion? Is it really "hatred" to say that a religion makes no sense, which is basically what pretty much 100% of my religious arguments boil down to? And if that's "hatred", then why should the standard for religious "hatred" be set so low? Why do so many people consider it so offensive for someone to criticize a religion? When I think about it, this is a very common behaviour; people often think that a "belief" is somehow granted a special kind of immunity from direct criticism which a mere "opinion" does not deserve.

If you are a religious person and you are confident in your faith, why should it bother you so much if someone says that it's nonsense, ie- makes no sense? If you admit openly that your religion rests on faith rather than logic, shouldn't you be perfectly willing to admit that it's nonsense? Shouldn't you at least be willing to take such comments in stride rather than interpreting them as "hatred?" If I see a mathematical equation that doesn't add up, am I guilty of "hatred" of the equation if I point out that it doesn't add up?

[Atheist Peace]

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

I am often told that I demonstrate a hatred for religion. I am curious what people mean when they say that someone "hates" religion. If someone accuses another person of racial hatred, the bar is set quite high: the other person must have done things like advocating deportation of other races, discrimination on the basis of race, or widespread generalizations such as "all blacks are stupid" (and in many cases, you can even say some of those things and still insist that you're not racist). But to the best of my knowledge, I never advocate deportation of religions, or discrimination on the basis of religion, nor do I say that all Christians are guilty of anything other than following what I consider to be a deeply flawed belief system.

So what does it mean to "hate" religion? Is it really "hatred" to say that a religion makes no sense, which is basically what pretty much 100% of my religious arguments boil down to? And if that's "hatred", then why should the standard for religious "hatred" be set so low? Why do so many people consider it so offensive for someone to criticize a religion? When I think about it, this is a very common behaviour; people often think that a "belief" is somehow granted a special kind of immunity from direct criticism which a mere "opinion" does not deserve.

If you are a religious person and you are confident in your faith, why should it bother you so much if someone says that it's nonsense, ie- makes no sense? If you admit openly that your religion rests on faith rather than logic, shouldn't you be perfectly willing to admit that it's nonsense? Shouldn't you at least be willing to take such comments in stride rather than interpreting them as "hatred?" If I see a mathematical equation that doesn't add up, am I guilty of "hatred" of the equation if I point out that it doesn't add up?

People are overly sensitive about things, especally religion. Now please, no one get offended by this, but in the case of many people (though I don't think this is prevalent on TWC), they are just afraid to have doubt created in their minds about their beliefs. So, when people question them or call them out for being the nonsense that they are, they freak and just say "shut up, you're being hateful!" and cover their ears.

I agree with you 100% though.

[Big War Bird]

Perhaps it's your tone. It could be construed as combative and condesending, but that's just an opinion. :o

When you equate faith to nosense you are making an error. Faith in part adresses questions that their are no logical explanations or unsatisfactory ansers exists. It may not be strictly logical, nut its hardly nonsense. In fact I would suggest that you consider the possibility that it is you that is not using all that grey matter between your ears. To have faith is to be creative and dynamic in ones thinking.

And you should know that it is impossible to prove there in no God(s) for the simple logic shows that you cannot prove a negative.

You are much better off fighting them on their own terms. (Indeed you may do these, for I hardly read all your posts) Accept that there is a God but He is unworthy of worship. Take the moral high road in refusing to worship a God that allows so much suffering.

But I genuinely do hate a religion. I hate the Roman Catholic Church. That is not to say I hate catholics, priests or the Pope. My whole faimly is catholic and I was until a few years ago. I have fond memories of my priests through the years and hold the New Pope in fairly high regard. However I came to realize that the Church and I do not see eye to eye. To me the Church has significantly undervalued importance of human life and liberty.

[O'brien the Protector]

I think its more of a natrual defense mechanism. You tend to use incessant logic arguments agiasnt something that as you said has no logical base. People defending unlogical statements with logic natrually would get frustrated, which leads to them labeling you as hateful to escape the need to actually refute your arguments.

AS for what hatig riligion is, the only way that I see that someone can be rightfully labeled as a riligion hater is if he hates everyone who belives in that riligion (assuming ofcourse he dosent do anyhting like detention, forcing conversions etc., which you obvously dont do).

[danzig]

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

People are overly sensitive about things, especally religion. Now please, no one get offended by this, but in the case of many people (though I don't think this is prevalent on TWC), they are just afraid to have doubt created in their minds about their beliefs. So, when people question them or call them out for being the nonsense that they are, they freak and just say "shut up, you're being hateful!" and cover their ears.

I agree with you 100% though.

With some that maybe the case but I do think a large number of religious people simply dont like having their beliefs mocked as often is the case by people who arent religious so it makes them defensive. There are of course uptight people, like ones who complain when you make fun of the Saudi flag You'll find though atleast I have amoung alot of catholics who like and dont mind debating the whole God thing. Growing up from a catholic school probably one of the most rational persons Ive ever run into was my guidance counselor who was a brother and proved to me that religious people can be religious can be confident enough in their beliefs to have them questioned and not be offended by it, uptight or incapable of offering rational reasons on religion. Far cry from my latin teacher another brother who was nothing short of an uptight religious prick.

[Darth Wong]

Originally Posted by Big War Bird

When you equate faith to nosense you are making an error. Faith in part adresses questions that their are no logical explanations or unsatisfactory ansers exists. It may not be strictly logical, nut its hardly nonsense.

Why not? Is it not the literal meaning of nonsense for something not to make any sense? And what do you think it means for something to make sense, if not logic?

In fact I would suggest that you consider the possibility that it is you that is not using all that grey matter between your ears. To have faith is to be creative and dynamic in ones thinking.

Are you suggesting that one must violate logic in order to be "creative and dynamic"? I don't see how that follows at all. Even when looking at works of creative literature, one can be annoyed when a story has obvious plot holes in it; should one get a slap on the wrist for trying to use logic there too?

And you should know that it is impossible to prove there in no God(s) for the simple logic shows that you cannot prove a negative.

Why does every religion-related thread invariably involve someone bringing up this argument, to which I always respond that by the same logic, you can't prove that I am not God, to which a few back-and-forth exchanges occur and then the religious person stops answering? I don't mind going through this charade once or twice, but it gets tiresome with repetition, and just once, I'd like to see someone do the dignified thing, be honest, and admit that this highlights a problem with the underlying logic.

You are much better off fighting them on their own terms. (Indeed you may do these, for I hardly read all your posts) Accept that there is a God but He is unworthy of worship. Take the moral high road in refusing to worship a God that allows so much suffering.

Why is it better to acknowledge that which makes no sense in order to make religious people more comfortable with an argument?

I think that last part is the most relevant part of the post, so if you do deign to answer, please answer me this: why are so many religious people so uncomfortable with a religious argument that is not made on their terms, ie- accepting at least some of their groundless assumptions? Is it as Atheist Peace suggested, and they're uncomfortable that they might start to doubt their own faith if they allow this line of questioning to continue? Or is it something else? You haven't really answered, apart from slyly suggesting that I must be stupid (ie- "not using all that gray matter") because I don't ignore the fact that religion makes no sense.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Well if you ask me, I say religion makes sense. Sure, we might not be able to understand how supernatural things work, but the teachings of religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) make sense. The Ten Commandments for example, make perfect sense to me.

The only thing we can't really understand is how the whole supernatural things work. Obviously science can't provide any explanation for supernatural events, but that doesn't mean that supernatural events are impossible. Our understanding of the universe is far far far far far far far from being anywhere near complete. So who are we to say that we can understand things that most likely lie outside of our own universe? Who are we to say that just because we can't understand something it means that that thing is an impossibility? Who are we discredit something just because we can't understand or comprehend it?

[danzig]

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

Why is it better to acknowledge that which makes no sense in order to make religious people more comfortable with an argument?

Because it 'makes sense' to several billion people on the planet...the majority of humans in one manner or the other if nothing else its just being polite. You acknowledge people who have different political views then you right? So why should religious people be any different if they are rational (and most are) people. Im no fan of religions but I see no point in not showing respect to those that too provided they also show respect for my non belief. Ill disagree with the original poster that you should 'pretend' there is a god who is unworthy of worship though.

[Darth Wong]

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

Well if you ask me, I say religion makes sense.

If it is illogical, how can it make sense?

Originally Posted by danzig

You acknowledge people who have different political views then you right? So why should religious people be any different if they are rational (and most are) people.

I acknowledge different political views, but that doesn't mean I have to humour them. Same goes for religion, and rationality is a characteristic of arguments, not people. When you say that something is irrational, you are referring to an idea. There is no such thing as a rational human being; we are irrational creatures which are occasionally capable of forcing ourselves to think rationally when necessary.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Originally Posted by Darth Wong

If it is illogical, how can it make sense?

Read my whole post. :wink:

[Darth Wong]

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

Read my whole post. :wink:

I did. All religions depict things happening in this universe, and in fact right here on Earth, which means you can't use the "rules might be different in another universe outside this one" excuse. The things they depict are in many cases testable, and can be easily shown to simply not work. Noah's Flood is a great example; one could go blue in the face listing all the reasons why it can't possibly work. It's actually a lot like that great old story of all the things that would have to happen in order for Santa Claus to deliver his toys in one night. It ends with Santa being burned to a crisp by air friction. Similarly, Noah would be steam-cooked alive.

[Guderian]

I can usually tolerate religious people, it's only when they start to use religion to justify thier stance on political or scientific issues that I get mad.

I also agree with BWB, religion destroys a person's perception of humanity, freedom and society, it deters people from finding out things for themselves, and this is what I dislike the most about religion.

[Odovacar]

We know a priest who ususaly visit us almost every week.
He has his ideas. A strong mixture of light feminism (he wanna be modern) very old prosteantism (dogmatism rather) plus science-centered view of the world (more likely science ficion than science)
He demands science (positivism), and rejects philosophy. Yet he blodly claims that every statement of the Bible can be scientifically proven (like God created humanity? :wub:?)
According to him, old Babylonians (?) saw the first humans coming from the ocean, hungarian and kechua peoples are related to each other because of language (??), and reptyles came from birds....(no comment)
And you ask me how can someone hate religion. I don't hate religion, I think I am christian. Yet I have nothing to do with this man, and what he calls his religion. Most so called religious man are only religious because their level of intelligence cannot allow them to discover enlightement.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

it was definately from your tone that i thought it sounded like you either hate religion or dislike the islamic faith.... sorry
but basically i am an athiest but i do not go around saying all religions are a load of bull i mean... i used to be a christian and it basically created my moral 'code'... an interesting topic i started on the .org was is athiesm a belief or a faith... the point i put forward was that most ordinary people will never ever get to see an atom in the 'flesh' and yet we are all (or most of us) are led to believe that they exist and create us all... and there was no one around to see the big-bang but is a theory many accept... yet the soul, the thing that makes us 'us' cannot be described as a format of atoms that we all have
i am an athiest or perhaps an agnostic but i don't go faith bashing or parading my own views... if i was to follow a religion it would be either christianity (because i was brought up with it) or buddhism because it would strengthen my moral values but i would never say that other religions are wrong but i might say my views about other religions' problems... if you understand me...
i could (and did) agree with you on some points that you made in the thread where i asked if you hated religion but i never try to state my views in the tone that you did it is alrite to critisise views but everyone is entitled to follow that view and saying that it is a load of bull is quite offensive...

i hope this helps
GMM

[Big War Bird]

Why are so many religious people so uncomfortable with a religious argument that is not made on their terms, ie- accepting at least some of their groundless assumptions?

Trying to argue against the existance of God is like trying to hold water with a strainer. There is no substance there so God (the water) can slip right right through the smallest holes (for example limits of scientific knowledge.) At any rate, since christians (in America at least) tend to better educated than others they have already accepted certain logical paradoxes of faith, so you really cannot confront them with anything they have not already dealt with.

But ultimately these kinds of debates are esoteric, having little to do the personal emotional application of faith. These are the real issues to be confronted. Why does God allow evil to exist, why is there so much pain and suffer in this world? These are really hard emotional questions that do not lead IMO to good answers. These questions, though not necessarily direct challenges to God's existance, have much more relevance to the value of faith in one's life.

But here is an article you might be interested in

Philosopher Antony Flew Abandons Atheism
Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design

For years, Antony Flew has been a figurehead for atheists. Now, though, he has abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God. In a recent interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas, Flew explained his new beliefs. Though Flew has not embraced Christianity, he now accepts the existence of God, saying that he “had to go where the evidence leads”.

This is not the first time that it has been reported that Flew has changed his mind. Twice before, in 2001 and 2003 respectively, it was rumoured that Flew had turned to Christianity; each time Flew quashed the rumours himself. This time, though, the reports are accurate; we have it from Flew himself.

Who is Antony Flew?

Antony Flew is not just any atheist. For decades, he has been a dominant figure in the philosophy of religion, among the most influential of atheist philosophers. He lectured on philosophy at the University of Oxford and the University of Aberdeen, and subsequently held professorships at the University of Keele and the University of Reading. He is the author of the celebrated essays “Theology and Falsification” and “The Presumption of Atheism”, and many monographs including Atheistic Humanism and Merely Mortal?: Can You Survive Your Own Death?. He has also represented atheism in published oral debates with William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and Thomas Warren.

What does Flew now believe?

Flew has not become a Christian; he has merely accepted the existence of God. He has described his new position as a form of deism. Deists accept that there is a God responsible for creating the universe, but reject claimed special revelation such as the Bible.

For Flew, this rejection of special revelation is not non-negotiable; Flew expresses an openness to the possibility of special revelation, and acknowledges that there is some evidence supporting the view that the Bible is such, but he makes it clear that his present view is that God does not intervene, and has not intervened, in human affairs since Creation.

What changed Flew’s mind?

Although Flew now believes that the case for the existence of God is powerful, he continues to reject outright the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God’s existence.

For Flew, it is the argument from design that shows that the existence of God is probable. He has been impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest that the universe is the product of intelligent design. “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,” explains Flew.

Flew cites Gerald Schroeder’s work The Hidden Face of God and Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God as particularly impressive. In the foreword to the new (and final) edition of his God and Philosophy, which Flew now describes as “an historical relic”, he acknowledges that the argument from design “becomes progressively more powerful with every advance in humankind’s knowledge of the integrated complexity of what used to be called the ‘system of nature’.” As this progress continues, perhaps more will follow Flew’s lead in conceding ground to theism.

Atheist Response

For atheists, this shift in Flew’s beliefs is highly embarrassing. To have such a prominent atheist accept the case for God’s existence is a major blow. To see how major a blow, consider the words of About.com’s resident atheist Austin Cline on October 16th, 2004:

“Have you read the news about Antony Flew abandoning atheism? This would be big news because Flew is one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century. It would be big news, that is, if it were true.”

Cline is spot-on both on Flew’s status among atheists and on the significance of his abandonment of atheism. His initial dismissal of the news as wishful thinking by believers (“Is it any wonder that so many nonbelievers look upon religion as little more than wish-fulfillment writ large? It seems as though almost anything even vaguely related to their religion can become infected by the same viral error of logic”) was too hasty, however, as Flew has now confirmed.

Some atheists have tried to explain Flew’s shift in thinking by his age; Flew is now 81, and so, it has been suggested, is professing belief in God just in case he soon has to give account of his life to his Maker. That is clearly not the case; Flew remains adamant that there is no afterlife—disembodied existence, he maintains (as he has always maintained) is impossible. In any case, Flew is not professing the kind of belief that any religion says will get you into heaven; he still rejects all purported divine revelation, including the Bible, the Koran, and any other example you’d care to mention. There’s no way that Flew, suddenly facing his own mortality, is trying to cover his bases just in case God exists. What has happened, is seems, is what he says has happened: he has gone where the evidence leads.

[Darth Wong]

Originally Posted by Big War Bird

Trying to argue against the existance of God is like trying to hold water with a strainer. There is no substance there so God (the water) can slip right right through the smallest holes (for example limits of scientific knowledge.)

Only if you don't realize what an "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy is.

At any rate, since christians (in America at least) tend to better educated than others they have already accepted certain logical paradoxes of faith, so you really cannot confront them with anything they have not already dealt with.

Nonsense; it's easy to argue against the existence of God. Simply point out that there's not a shred of evidence for his existence. And when they demand that you prove there is no God, point out that demanding to prove a negative is pure sophistry, just as I have done right here in this thread to you and you have failed to respond. And Christians are not more highly educated than anyone else; in fact people with doctorates are more likely to be atheists than anything else. The fact that people with 3 year BAs are quite likely to be Christian doesn't prove a whole lot; a modern 3-year BA is what a high school education used to be. It means that you know how to spell your name and show up for class.

But ultimately these kinds of debates are esoteric, having little to do the personal emotional application of faith. These are the real issues to be confronted. Why does God allow evil to exist, why is there so much pain and suffer in this world? These are really hard emotional questions that do not lead IMO to good answers. These questions, though not necessarily direct challenges to God's existance, have much more relevance to the value of faith in one's life.

If it's so easy for you to answer challenges to God's existence, why have you conspicuously ignored the direct argument I made against God's existence right here in this thread? This is another pattern I have noticed among stubborn religious types; if they don't complain that you "hate" religion for questioning it, they just quietly ignore points that they have no answer for.

But here is an article you might be interested in

The fact that some atheist (who I've never heard of, by the way, despite the article's attempt to pretend that he's some sort of Grand Atheist Leader) reverted back to Christianity hardly means that it is an intrinsically logical thing to do so, unless you're trying to use the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy with him as the authority. The Argument from Design works best on people who don't realize that the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" is in fact a fallacy, and who have no idea what actual design looks like. Mr. Flew is supposedly a philosopher, but he's apparently been hoodwinked by the idea that the biosystem reflects an intelligent design when in fact it does not. Numerous features of real intelligent design processes are nowhere to be found in the biosystem.

[mongoose]

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

The only thing we can't really understand is how the whole supernatural things work. Obviously science can't provide any explanation for supernatural events, but that doesn't mean that supernatural events are impossible. Our understanding of the universe is far far far far far far far from being anywhere near complete. So who are we to say that we can understand things that most likely lie outside of our own universe? Who are we to say that just because we can't understand something it means that that thing is an impossibility? Who are we discredit something just because we can't understand or comprehend it?

But can religion provide evidence that supports the stories about supernatural events?
Do you have any historical record of the supernatural? Saying that you've heard stories of things that can't be explained doesn't prove anything ecxept that you're gullible.

[Big War Bird]

@ Darth Wong

I was not aware you were trying to debate me since I know I was not try to refute your views. I am trying to help you. I merely suggesting that your debating could be more effective by using a different approach. Alas, your seem set to continue your unimaginative and futile course.

[Atheist Peace]

Originally Posted by Big War Bird

@ Darth Wong

I was not aware you were trying to debate me since I know I was not try to refute your views. I am trying to help you. I merely suggesting that your debating could be more effective by using a different approach. Alas, your seem set to continue your unimaginative and futile course.

And you still fail to address a signle one of his points.

[Big War Bird]

Originally Posted by Atheist Peace

And you still fail to address a signle one of his points.

Seeing as how this is not the Existance of God thread but more of a discussion about that debate I feel no need to try to refute his arguments, nor do I wish to.

Darth Wong started this tread asking why he was preceived as hating religion. I offered him suggestions on how he might avoid such a distasteful allegation and actually make some headway in converting the unwashed masses. If he didn't want an answer he should have never started this thread in the first place.