Which is wrong, religion, or the way it's practiced?

brian thomson www

I don’t see any separation between the two: one of our primary objections to religion is how it justifies behaviour that would not normally be acceptable, even if that behaviour is not mandated by scriptures.

For example, there’s nothing in the Koran or Hadiths to justify female genital mutilation, and the practice pre-dates Islam, yet some Muslims say that the practice is justified under Islam. How do they get away with this? Because Islam is beyond criticism, supposedly of divine origin, yet based on the practices of a male-dominated tribal society, in the Middle East, 1,500 years ago. Invoke it to support whatever you like, and all concerns fall away.

You might be tempted to say “well, that’s not my religion”, but your religion has been that bad in the past, and there’s nothing to guarantee it couldn’t happen again, under the “right” circumstances.

Conversely, in Western countries, it appears to me as if many Christians (in particular) don’t actually practice their religion in full. They cherry-pick the bits they like, and ignore the bits they don’t like. Have you seen what the “prosperity gospel” preachers are up to in America? Jesus was rich, apparently, so that made it OK for Oral Roberts to enrich himself off the backs of his congregation, while telling them to pray for wealth. Again, this “prosperity gospel” was a core part of his religion, and can not be separated out as “the way religion is practicd”.

Eric_PK

The problem with religion is that it asserts that it knows what is right and wrong.

This is so obviously wrong that it’s amazing to me that anybody believes it – not only do different religions have drastically different moral codes, they have moral codes that have evolved over time. I’m happy, for example, that most christian religions say that slavery is wrong, but it’s pretty clear that those same religions used to have a different moral code.

Either god has an evolving moral code – which is a pretty weird concept – or the moral codes “from god” are just made up by the people who are in charge of the religion.

Which is bad. Really bad, because if you take your moral code from somebody else, you can end up believing stupid things. God hates fags. God wants you to kill abortion doctors. God will reward you with virgins in heaven if you die a martyr. All of the bad things that happen due to religion are because of this, and it’s inherent in the vast majority of religions.

I have no idea what you mean by “a personal relationship with the universe” – that phrase just seems like nonsense to me.

bitbutter www

From my perspective, whatever else religion may be to people, it’s defining feature is a set of claims about things that have happened in the world, and pronouncements on its metaphysical structure.

It’s my view that none of the religious claims I’ve come across are adequately supported by evidence. So religious belief is unjustified.

Of course religious texts don’t have to be read as though they are factual accounts. For instance, atheists report enjoying and finding inspiration in some biblical stories.

If a person finds value in religious narratives, but does not believe in their literal truth, I believe it is inviting misunderstanding to speak of them as being religious.

logicel

If only the majority of religious believers in the world could believe in the manner in which you do. However, they don’t and you are in a minority. For short hand, many atheist discussions will focus on this majority view, and this view, is problematic in both content and in the structure in which it is practiced.

I am guessing that you are really asking if non-evidential belief is problematic in one’s own private life, as in your case. If it is an activity that you do as an adult, it certainly is none of anyone’s business. If you keep it private, I can’t see how it can significantly impact negatively on secular society.

For example, you have the legal right to an abortion, but your private, personal, non-evidential perspective is that it is wrong, hence you will not have an abortion. If you want to eliminate the legality of abortion than such beliefs have no place in the tax-paying public sphere. If you can provide secular, evidence-based reasons as to why abortion should be made illegal, than that approach would be acceptable.

Moderates are not even like you. I know many who insist that no religious beliefs be criticized at all, ever. However, secular society requires robust examination of ideas presented for public adoption in order for it to evolve and learn from its mistakes.

I would encourage you to challenge the majority of religious believers who consistently and loudly give non-evidential beliefs a bad name because they push them down as many throats as possible and then expect deferential treatment and respect on demand.