This whole religion thing really blows my mind. When my professor was talking about some of the rules associated with various religions, I couldn’t help but wonder how brainwashed people must be to actually follow this shit.
One rule associated with Buddhism disallows them to eat at improper times, meaning they can only eat between sunrise and noon. Not only is that unhealthy, it’s just plain dumb. Don’t they get hungry throughout the day? I’m not sure how many people actually follow that rule these days, but seriously, why would a “supreme being” really care when you eat?
In the morning upon waking up, Orthodox Jews are not allowed to touch any part of their body that has an opening until they have washed their hands. Also, they cannot step more than six feet from their bed without washing their hands. I guess this means they must have a washing basin right next to their bed. Seriously, it cannot get much more ridiculous than that.
It’s hard not to laugh at some of the things people in this class say. This one girl was saying something about how crazy the washing of the hands rule is. Yet later in the class, she mentioned that she believes that she’s actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ in her church. Not literally, of course, but she feels as though she must do that in order to get to heaven. That is just as crazy as washing your hands within six feet of your bed.
Most of the stuff that goes on in class gives me more and more reasons to despise religion. At least the class is interesting.
Religions should not be despised. If someone wants to believe in something, that’s their prerogative, and no one should tell them elsewise.
The type of religion that should be despised is one of extremism, which is partly why there’s so many problems in the world today.
Yes, many religions have ridiculous customs, but these customs all go back to when the religions were just being formed, or were just something that became normal in them over time. Just because they are there doesn’t mean you must follow them, either.
There’s something to learn in any religion, just like there’s something to learn in anything in general. There is a lot to despise as well, but it shouldn’t be just blind hatred.
In response to Mitch,
Why shouldn’t they be hated or despised Why should irrationality be
tolerated You can’t just say “Oh gee, you should just be polite and
respectful” without giving a single reason why.
Why shouldn’t they be hated? Because hate is destructive, not only to others but to yourself.
Many of the ‘weird’ rules are either faith based, or based on what modern technology has conquered. Not eating for half the day is not necesarily unhealthy, and it is a test of faith, as well as a way to feel more connected to the rest of the world. The washing your hands bit goes a long way back, and is in fact HEALTHY and rational.
Love is irrational. Its the commitment that someone is perfect for you, your match. Infact, love is nothing more than a chemical addiction. Addictions are bad for the body as they weaken much of our body. If things that are irrational shouldn’t be tolerated, and should be hated, we should hate love.
And yes, you should just be respectful. There is one law, laid out in all religions, including Atheism, which is treat others as you’d have yourself be treated. Respect should be given until they show they do not deserve it.
In regards to mitch: belief itself should be reserved for rationality. To believe in something irrational is, itself absurd. How religion becomes amiable is by its progression into philosophy; where there is consistency both in form of thought, and in actuality. If the Christian God exists, then, in fact Buddha’s transcendence doesn’t, and should, in fact, be despised. (or visa versa)
In regards to TransformerGreek: You should not even have a feeling of hatred towards the irrational, but a cool disposition of indifference. Much like if a crazy told you about his pet giant pink rabbit: it wouldn’t even enter your mind to hate the pink rabbit… why would you hate the pink rabbit? — it isn’t real. But then, reality hardly needs explaining. That which is real needs no vindication for its reality; if, indeed, something is real it needs no reason to be real… It seems to me that modern man has remedied the dogma of the supernatural with a dogma of the natural, and when it comes right down to it, both are faith, and both equally detrimental.
In regards to Aheretic: Hate is as constructive a thing as it is a destructive thing. Love, too can be destructive. It is merely a method of what is a loved or hated. The love of murder, would, imho be destructive, while the hatred of murder, by nature be constructive. Now… next part. Love is not irrational if it is a chemical addiction. Nor would I say that addiction is necessarily bad. (and I apologize for everything coming out dialectic) A bodies addiction to protein seems a very good thing, yet, a bodies addiction to nicotine is detrimental: again, it is the circumstances of a thing that deem its qualities, not the thing in itself. As to respect: I agree 100%. Yet, respect is not idle, polite acceptance of any thought. It is the ability to disagree with a thought, and act upon that thought without dogmatic behavior. If a Taoist comes to me, and explains his belief in the Tao, and wishes to have a conversation, I do not have to concede its reality, but merely it possibility, and then have a discussion from there.
Atheism is a religion no more than monotheism is a religion; it is a train of thought which can be upheld in many, often contradictory ways. (much like Christianity and Islam are contradictory, but are both monotheistic).
Last thing: Do unto others maxim is a maxim of western thought, more specifically, Christian based. It is a deeper concept than what most take it for. It does not mandate kindness, it doesn’t even mandate tolerance… it demands consistency.
“:In regards to mitch: belief itself should be reserved for rationality. To believe in something irrational is, itself absurd. How religion becomes amiable is by its progression into philosophy; where there is consistency both in form of thought, and in actuality. If the Christian God exists, then, in fact Buddha’s transcendence doesn’t, and should, in fact, be despised. (or visa versa)”
I disagree with you. What is rational? What is belief? What is “form of thought”? Define your terms, because I’m not getting your true meaning.
A commitment to what you’ve just called a “dogmatic love of things natural,” or what I’d further term as our post-enlightenment reason we’re currently trailing along, takes an irrational step to believe in. If it was rational, then we’d inherently have been like that, way back when when we believed in supernatural and mystic things.
But yes, on that point I agree. It’s no better than religion, and in fact is just another story being weaved, that tries to explain things that are unexplainable, but ultimately fails. The main chracter in this story is rationality, the setting is a belief that there is a thing-in-itself (which I suppose I’d agree with, but I question how much our senses can truly make known of this noumenal reality).
We can’t know if the Christian God exists, and we can’t know if the Buddha’s transcendence does, so what does that leave? By your logic, you cannot hate either of them, but simply look at them and find what seems worthwhile in them. Correct? This is what I mean. If you fall into either of them, they become dogmas, and you narrow what you can learn by ruiling out one or the other.
I think there is some display of lack of understanding here.
Religion is not faith. If you look at the story of Jesus, he was killed by a group of very religious people, the Pharisees. The Pharisees insists on following rules in order to somehow “earn” God’s favor, contrasted to Grace which is given _free_ to the faithful.
The woman in the church example is one who exibits this “earning” behavior. She was not operating by Christian Grace. If she thinks she *must* do that in order to earn something, anything at all, then hey- even I would think she’s crazy, and I’m a Christian!
Look, I’m just here shaking my head. A lot of non-believers as well as self-proclaimed believers have quite a bit learning to do. Start with the concept of Grace.
I see many people objecting to Christianity, but a warped version of it.
I think you, sir, have quite a bit of learning to do as well. And that is that is that not everyone is you, and Christianity cannot work for everyone. If it works for you, that is fine, but do not condemn others as having a lack of understanding, because not everyone can understand the world in the way you do.
Religion is stupid, period. It’s insane, destructive, and based on the completely absurd. So you believe some god is going to give you paradise if you wash your hands or say grace? It’s ridiculous. Religion is totally irrational, and frankly, the more destructive religions (say, Christianity, Islam, even Judaism) don’t deserve any serious sort of respect.