Why religion?

70 posts / 0 new
Last post
Burn Your Bible's picture
Why religion?

So when I look at different religions I see oppression, I do not see happiness or love I see hate, judgement, death, mistreatment of youth, racism, sexism, ideas that have no facts to back them up....

Now I could go on but you get the point, but what I want to know is if you are a theist... why? What makes you want to worship? What makes you feel like you are worthless without a god? Why follow and throw away science and facts? Why subject your children to fear tactics to scare them into behaving?

Is it only because of fear of your own mortality?

I really want to know why.........

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

jonthecatholic's picture
Careful trying to paint all

Careful trying to paint all religions with one color. You know that I don’t want to throw away science or experience oppression. Quite frankly, it’s able to provide for me a moral framework that just works.

That’s the short answer.

Stu. K.'s picture
And you can't be an atheist

And you can't be an atheist with a moral framework why..?

Burn Your Bible's picture
Jon we have had this talk

Jon we have had this talk before if you want to throw away scripture and replace it with science that's awesome but you nor anyone else can say that science and the Bible go hand in hand. If you want to say every verse that science contradicts is only a metaphor, than to me your just being silly. Also I paint the different religions as I see them, to your point I have met many women that claim to be in loving relationships yet their husbands beat them regularly!! Sometimes people would rather lie than face the truth.

jonthecatholic's picture
"If you want to say every

"If you want to say every verse that science contradicts is only a metaphor, than to me your just being silly"

- Actually, if you look at the how the early church fathers taught those specific bible verses you mention and how to interpret them (like which ones are metaphors, symbolic, etc) then you can pretty easily see how the literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is actually the silly opinion. Example. Not even the early church fathers saw the story of creation as 6 literal days. Young earth creationist are a fairly new phenomenon

"to your point I have met many women that claim to be in loving relationships yet their husbands beat them regularly!! Sometimes people would rather lie than face the truth."

- while this may be true, these are people you know and can see their situation. I can also make for a case that many women who claim to be in loving relationships... are actually in loving relationships.

Burn Your Bible's picture
Jon please tell me how early

Jon please tell me how early Church fathers taught creation? How many days did they equate it to??? Some Christian's have said one day to god is 1000 years ok still doesn't follow how old the earth is! Let alone the universe. Do you do no thinking outside of what your church taught you? When a father tells you something about the early church have you ever said PROVE IT!?!

What verse do you find to be true? Please let me know how you come to the conclusion whether it IS TRUE OR IS A METAPHOR...

jonthecatholic's picture
My father taught me nothing

My father taught me nothing about this particular topic. It's one I sought myself.

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/st-agustine-explains-genesis.html

Generally, you'd have to understand the genre a certain text in the Bible was written in. Poetry, for example, is able to convey truths though in a poetic fashion. Genesis 1~11 is thought to convey the truth that God is the creator of the universe, that man has intrinsic worth owing to him being created in the image and likeness of God. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles are known as the historical books (among others). We however, should also be wary of holding ancient texts to modern standards of accuracy.

I'm of the belief that whenever the number 40 is used in the Bible, it's used to denote time in the Bible, it is symbolic of "a long time" or "many years/days". 3 and 12 also have a certain symbolism attached to them. When I do read the Bible, you can see some commentaries, which usually indicate to me that it might be prudent to look at the original language used. Sometimes english translations come up pretty poor on translating certain Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts.

I actually have a book I'd like to recommend to you but I'll do so after I've read it fully.

algebe's picture
@Jon the Catholic: "Sometimes

@Jon the Catholic: "Sometimes english translations come up pretty poor on translating certain Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts."

Yes. When I first started translating nearly 40 years ago, I accidentally mixed up the Japanese words for "castration" and "vasectomy". Fortunately we were only talking about sheep, so no real harm was done. I can't say the same about mistranslations of the word "virgin" in your bible.

jonthecatholic's picture
What “mistranslation” are you

What “mistranslation” are you talking about? I’m pretty sure you’re talking about the prophecy in Isaiah. Do you have the Hebrew word for virgin? Or did they have to resort to using the closest word they had to virgin?

algebe's picture
The Hebrew word is "Almah",

The Hebrew word is "Almah", which means a "young woman." "Virgin is "Betulah". For some reason both were translated into Greek as "parthenos" meaning "virgin" in the Septuagint. (The Parthenon in Athens is a temple to Athena, who is another mythological virgin.)

So we go from a young woman in Hebrew to a virgin in Greek to a ludicrous and morbid cult of virginity in Christianity.

jonthecatholic's picture
"In the few verses where

"In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste."

It seems the author of Isaiah was asserting the same thing.

algebe's picture
@Jon the Catholic: "Although

@Jon the Catholic: "Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity"

No. But parthenos and virgin certainly do. Virginity is the very core of their meaning, and that meaning, which isn't present in the more neutral word "almah" is the whole basis for the misguided cult of the virgin.

Why on Earth do Christians associate virginity with purity, as if sex and procreation were dirty things? The perverted virgin cult is a profound insult to every mother.

jonthecatholic's picture
You miss understand the

You miss understand the church's position on sex.

The Church sees that sex is beautiful and sacred. In fact, whenever a married couple has sex, they're said to renew their marriage vows. According to the church, sex has two components that should not be separated from each other. It should be unitive (love) and procreative (open to life). As such, sex must only be done in the confines of marriage.

Sirkenstien's picture
Marriage by the state? Define

Marriage by the state? Define marriage. Does it require a certificate? The jews viewed someone as married after they had sex.

Sheldon's picture
Jon the Catholic " it’s able

Jon the Catholic " it’s able to provide for me a moral framework that just works."

How do you know this framework is moral? Do you make subjective assessments about it? Or do you simply accept it as moral and follow it blindly because you think you can't make moral assessments? If you are capable of using reason to assess the morality of ideas and beliefs then why do you need religion especially?

jonthecatholic's picture
Up until a certain age, I

Up until a certain age, I simply accepted it. From the ages of 20 until 26, I simply cherry picked what I liked and disagreed with the rest. Then I started looking at each individual issue I disagreed with the church on like abortion in cases of rape, physician assisted suicide, contraception, same sex marriage, IVF, capital punishment, etc. I read the arguments of both sides and on every single issue, I found that the Catholic Church's position made more sense than my own.

I then realized that this institution actually teaches a moral framework that works and makes sense (not even needing to quote any Bible verse in the process). Why do I need religion for a moral framework I just said I can come to by logic alone? Because someday I will die, but the next generation will have to figure this all out again. And rather than debate with them one by one on each of these issues, it's so much simpler to say, "Ask the Church. They'll answer you."

Burn Your Bible's picture
JOC that is just plain silly!

JOC that is just plain silly! I do not care personally what you believe in but if your answer to the future generations is "ask the church" my response is fuck the church. The entire church is immoral to its core! The views they have are disgusting, immoral, and even criminal! They have literally gotten away with murder, rape, money laundering, buying groups off, and countless other horrendous acts! I do not look at a few individuals either I am looking at the whole Church organization and it is shit! I like how you have avoided these issues!, your awesome moral framework is built on lies and the blood of innocent humans! The Catholic Church is a bunch of wizards dressed in robes that make others call them daddy! Fuck the church, the future generations will be 100% better off without it!

jonthecatholic's picture
Well, I won't try to justify

Well, I won't try to justify the evil actions of the men inside the church hierarchy. Notice, however, that the church has never taught that murder, rape, money laundering, etc are moral acts. It hasn't even taught that molesting young boys is moral. If you can refer me to a Vatican teaching which says otherwise, then I'll probably change my position.

Your argument assumes that correct teachings cannot be taught by imperfect people. Yet you follow laws everyday that congress puts forth. Those people and the institution aren't the most morally squeaky clean ones in history and I think you'd agree. Would you say that the future generation is much better off without a government structure?

Burn Your Bible's picture
No my assumption is not that

No my assumption is not that of imperfect people can't correctly teach!
If the Catholic Church has been involved in numerous horrendous acts then as a whole we should rid the world of it! It serves no good purpose! So let's use police since that is a hot topic in America...

I believe the police are a necessary institution, yet it needs to be reformed! We should spend time cleaning it up for the greater good!

Now the church is backed by the Bible, the Bible is an inaccurate, immoral book of hate speech and murder! If we can have secular non profits that help out homeless, sick, etc and they keep their books open for audits so we can know they are using their money correctly then why churches? The problem is we do not need churches and when a giant money hungry monster like the Catholic Church shows up we should pull them down a few pegs. They need to open up their books for auditing, they need to relinquish there power to the people and they need to lose their influence through fear tactics! The WHOLE CHURCH IS CORRUPT! People do good not the church.

As I have heard before...
Good people do good things
Bad people do bad things
It takes religion to get good people to do bad things!

jonthecatholic's picture
So you’re giving the police

So you’re giving the police force a pass for being corrupt and not the church? That seems fair. How about the UN?

I think we’re going around in circles here. You always go back to the Bible being this pc of literature that has all these immoral laws in them. While it’s true that the Bible records people doing immoral acts, does it follow that the book itself is immoral. Does it not show how immoral acts are punished as well?

Burn Your Bible's picture
What is the punishment for

What is the punishment for owning a slave Jon?

If you kill all men woman ( unless they are virgins) and children from another tribe, what is your punishment?

What is the punishment for sacrificing your firstborn male?

What is the punishment for selling your daughter as a slave?

What is the punishment for raping a virgin?

What is the punishment for killing every human and animal on earth with the exception of a couple from each?

Answer these questions Jon...

What Jon do you not want to answer????

Sheldon's picture
"I read the arguments of both

"I read the arguments of both sides and on every single issue, I found that the Catholic Church's position made more sense than my own."

So just your own subjective opinion on what is moral then, you don't need any religious beliefs for that.

Can you give three of the top examples of the RCC's moral ascendancy? How do you square your claim against the RCC;s institutional criminality in protecting paedophile priests, and buying the silence of victims?

You already made the asinine assertion that condoms are not the answer to AIDS, though of course even that absurd claim is a disingenuous watering down of what the Vatican and the pope actually said, namely that "condoms cause AIDS".

https://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-pope-says-condoms-cau...

That's tantamount to endorsing genocide, though even this is hardly new ground for the RCC. How can anyone think their appalling record offers a "moral framework"?

jonthecatholic's picture
I’d actually agree with the

I’d actually agree with the condoms cause AIDS bit to some degree and indirectly. Condoms give a false sense of security. You think you’re safe from all the effects of sex like STDs or pregnancy but that is simply not true.

It “incentivizes” married men and women into engaging in affairs as the effect of sex is removed from the act.

mykcob4's picture
If you can't be moral without

If you can't be moral without the fear of your god, then you are not moral at all. Morality isn't an exercise in extortion.

jonthecatholic's picture
Strange how what I say

Strange how what I say usually gets twisted into something I didn't say.

Did I somehow say that an atheist cannot be moral? I just said that the Catholic church has a moral framework which while it is counter cultural, actually makes more sense to me than popular culture's moral framework. That is all.

chorlton's picture
catholic church morality =

catholic church morality = men are superior to women
wrong

catholic church morality = do as god says or be punished
wrong

if you need religion to make you moral you are no more than a wild animal on a leash

metaphors etc = the perfect god needs tiny primates to teach other primates for him & kill only means kill when the tiny primate says so

make it up as you go along & change it when in a corner

jonthecatholic's picture
Wow. Where are you getting

Wow. Where are you getting your sources on Catholic morality?

I find it a bit frustrating that somehow my words are understood to mean that I need religion to be moral.

chorlton's picture
I find all religion

I find all religion frustrating, suck it up because it gets worse, maybe go find a safe place to confess instead?

source is the church, its books & teachings
need taught about it?

start by listing all the leaders from top down and tell me how many ranks & you numbers you get to before you find a women then go back 50 years and do the same

once you've done the above go through whichever version of the thousands of different versions of the bible meant to be the perfect gods one true word & count the sexist verses.

or don't because you don't actually care hence you are here spouting pride filled iron age insanity.
trouble with every theist is they come to teach not to learn

proud you read a book & copied daddy ?

Sheldon's picture
How do you feel about the

How do you feel about the moral failing of the RCC itself? The concordat with Nazism, the endemic child abuse, the church hierarchy aiding and abetting paedophile priests in escaping justice leaving them free to re offend again and again, buying the silence of victims. Then there are its historical failings of course from the crusades to centuries of endemic antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust. Then there is It's barbaric stance on condom use in countries where AIDS is endemic. It's historical abuses of women and girls who became pregnant outside of marriage, and on and on it goes.

It's very hard for me to see the inerrant morality in a religion that is inherently criminal and has so much immorality and even evil behaviour to answer for. The idea that a perfectly decent person who does nothing but good all their lives can spend an eternity being tortured, yet someone who personifies evil can be forgiven through one act of genuine contrition and spend an eternity of bliss.

I also have a problem with the concept of a blood sacrifice for atonement, as I find the idea someone needed to be tortured and murdered to atone for someone else's mistakes utterly abhorrent and immoral. Also the idea that humans are born cursed with a supernatural stain called sin is utterly unconscionable to me.

jonthecatholic's picture
I'll grant you that the RCC

I'll grant you that the RCC isn't squeaky clean. Filthy, you might even say. But have you ever stopped and thought that everyday, you follow the laws of your country without thinking about the immoral and filthy state of politics? If your country exists today, it's most likely the winner of some conflict in the past and has killed other cultures and other peoples to be where it is today. Are you saying you won't follow those laws?

The RCC isn't perfect. But no human institution is. Because, well, they're just human. For the stance of the RCC on condom use and the AIDS endemic, you can see my comment below. Also, you forget to note (or maybe chose to ignore) the fact that the RCC is actually the single biggest contributor to AIDS research and treatment.

Sheldon's picture
"I'll grant you that the RCC

"I'll grant you that the RCC isn't squeaky clean. Filthy, you might even say. But have you ever stopped and thought that everyday, you follow the laws of your country without thinking about the immoral and filthy state of politics?"

No, because that's not remotely what I do. Though nothing in politics comes close to the nefarious evil actions of the RCC, from institutionalised child abuse, and criminality protecting paedophile priests whilst conically buying the silence of their victims. To the evil dogma that condemns consenting adults for loving each other, whilst insisting that no level of abuse to her or her children entitles a woman to divorce a spouse. Or the evil misinformation it disseminates about condom use in countries where HIV+ virus and other STD's are as endemic as the abject poverty that is perpetuated by uncontrolled birth rates, with no rights for women to have any autonomy over their own bodies.

Can you cite some examples of UK laws that are remotely comparable to that level of nefarious evil?
--------------------------------------------------------
"If your country exists today, it's most likely the winner of some conflict in the past and has killed other cultures and other peoples to be where it is today. Are you saying you won't follow those laws?"

What have those laws to do with historical wrongs? Or with the RCC's institutionalised amoral and immoral actions?
------------------------------------------
"The RCC isn't perfect. But no human institution is. Because, well, they're just human."

So you don't think the RCC has any more moral authority than any secular institution then? Well that's a start of sorts I suppose. Though claiming they're not perfect is like claiming Hitler wasn't all good.
----------------------------------------
"Also, you forget to note (or maybe chose to ignore) the fact that the RCC is actually the single biggest contributor to AIDS research and treatment."

Did you offer links to evidence this, only as far as I can see the largest donations are from the US government still, though that's not really relevant to their genocidal attitude towards condom use is it?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-a...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (or simply The Global Fund) is an international financing organisation that aims to "[a]ttract and disburse additional resources to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. A public–private partnership, the organisation has its secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland.[2] The organisation began operations in January 2002.Microsoft founder Bill Gates was one of the first private foundations among many bilateral donors to provide seed money for the project.

No mention of the RCC there, and Bill Gates may have the sense to be reticent to a hostile American public but there is little doubt he is an atheist, as well as being one of the most philanthropic people of his generation

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.