Why hate on religion instead of the people in it?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Zfactor, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. Zfactor

    Zfactor New Member

    NOTE: I included an example about Greenpeace and GE crops in this thread. It was not meant to be the topic of discussion! It was just the only example that came to mind while writing this thread. Please do not take offense to my views on GE crops as I do not try to present them as undeniable fact.


    There seems to be a recent trend of people hating on whole religions rather than focusing their attention on the people who cause problems in the name of religion (this may or may not occur in this forum, but it is certainly a recurring theme on the net and on the news). Why? It seems irrational to me to think negatively of a religion because some groups or individuals used religion to manipulate others and further their own agendas.

    IMO it would be the equivalent of me saying that all environmentalists are liars who only care about themselves because groups like Greenpeace exist. While doing research on genetically engineered crops for a pursuasive speech in my college speech class, a year back, I came across a lot of dirty tricks pulled by greenpeace. For example, they use visions of an apocalyptic future because of GE crops that aren't actually based on scientific data (rather, it's based on books or statements by other people who draw conclusions from missing or incomplete data). Also, (at the time) on their website was an image of a person in full biohazard gear handling GE crops. This scares the hell out of people, but when you read the fine print the person in the suit was NOT a scientist or trained personnel disposing of a biohazard, rather it was just some protestor. It seems that some people just don't like GE crops because they are afraid of eating it themselves, but the problem is that impoverished nations NEED these safe GE crops (see: Norman Borlaug) to feed their starving peoples. In one case, an enviro group talked an African nation OUT of taking FREE GE crops created by Dr. Borlaug by using scare tactics and baseless claims.

    Now, is it rational for me to then say that Greenpeace exists, therefore all environmentalists are selfish people who use scare tactics to push their agenda? Certainly NOT. I am sure there are those out there who have done their homework and honestly feel that they have a compromise or better solution; and rather than making stuff up they back their arguments with legit data. Rather than using scare tactics to manipulate others, they spark important and honest debates between supporters and opponants of GE crops that can result in viable and beneficial solutions to the major issues.

    Now why wouldn't the same apply to religion? Why not realize that in all walks of life there are people with an axe to grind or even just nasty people who use religion, fear, and emotion to manipulate the masses to further their agenda?


    Agree? Disagree? Think I'm full of crap? Then don't hesitate to post your opinion
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2006
  2. BendzR

    BendzR New Member

    Okay, I totally disagree.

    Greenpeace, or similar groups, are bad examples to compare to Religions.

    Political groups do not effect invidiuals in the same way as Religions do. They do not dictate how people fear and live their lives. So the comparison is a moot point.

    Now, why do people look apon the Religion over the people ?

    Because they understand the dynamics of a religios system. Religion functions by dictating individuals via fear and other emotional factors, and at the same time, the system allows those individuals to feel as if they are making decisions by choice, but really they are not. It is a very real, and very strong potential for brainwashing.

    Now before anyone gets offended and starts defending their Religions, let me make this clear. I am not saying every single Religion is a brainwashing load of balony. What you believe in, is your business. I have no problem with people following certain beliefs and philosophies, nor does it bother me if you believe in God.

    However, what I do firmly believe, is that Religions are potentially very strong brainwashing sources. Some people are Christians, and because of it, they are loving wonderful people. Others end up killing people who work at abortion clinics out of zeal and insanity.

    Religions can control people to the point where they are bordering on insanity. Systems which encourage "converting others" via positive or negative reinforcement (rewarding for success, or punishment for failure) is where the problem is.

    No one has ever hurt anyone by having an imaginary friend. No one can possibly do any harm to anyone by believing in a God, or a ghost, or ancestors.. whatever. The problem comes when they are convinced that others must do the same, or must be punished for wrongs. This is where conflict spawns.

    I believe that when a man flies a plane into a building, to kill thousands of people, he is - without a doubt - insane. So, then it would be silly to target him for his actions. He is insane and does not have the capacity to think properly, what so ever.

    Now, you must ask why did this insane person, become insane. They were not born that way. He was made that way. It is not genetic. The other major influence in behaviour is environment (nurture) and thus we come to the conclusion that the guy was insane because of some psychological influence.

    Religions can often be that psychological influence that may cause so much harm and damage. That does not mean that Religion is the only potential, but it sure is a comon one. Other such sources include social circles, cults, etc. There are many factors that count as well. People have potentially harmful attributes such as Greed, Jealousy, etc.

    That is why I am against organised religios systems (cults and other similar potentials get no love from me either). They are potentially harmful when the belief, becomes a belief-system.

    There is no harm in someone having a personal belief. I also think there is no significant benefit in having to hold your beliefs in an organised system either.

    :Angel:
     
  3. Nomadwanders

    Nomadwanders Valued Member

    It is always easier to generalize and hate an entire group than it is to find out the facts and single out individuals. Basically, IMO it comes down to laziness and peoples' tendency to group, classify, and pass judgement. It also doesn't help that the most vocal people in the group are also usually those with the most radical ideologies.
     
  4. Incredible Bulk

    Incredible Bulk Eat-Lift-Eat-Sleep-Grow

    i'm pro GM crops and animal testing... i am greenpeace's best friend :rolleyes:

    like i care...

    science is trying to create crops that can grow under harsh conditions such as in africa to help the 3rd world beat famines... green peace dont see this.
    Animal testing has allowed us to have the benefits of modern medicine and help in the devlopment of vaccines or drugs.

    Green peace is a political movement, not a religion...
     
  5. Deepsey

    Deepsey Banned Banned

    (I read that)
    Hatred is a defencive act. - And many disagre here.
    So, actually IMO. Neither a group shld be hated, nor an individual.

    When an individual is hated by someone, then it is his action which base themselfs upon toughts that are actually hated. - So, when i hate a Muslim or a Christian for example, i hate the toughts that caused their actions toward me/in relation with me. ...
     
  6. Thelistmaker

    Thelistmaker bats!

    I agree very much with that

    The smartest people in the world will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough.

    It takes great mental strength not to fall into the trap of concluding number 2:

    1. my beliefs are true
    2. Therefore I am better than anyone who holds a different belief.

    There is a very interesting series of lectures on the psychopathology of the religious fanatic and the secular power hungry control freak in the link bellow:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2004/ (‘I am right, you are dead’ is the best one :) )

    Also, I believe the benefits of GM crops outweigh the risks, many of the fears people have are based on ignorance of the science and many disadvantages attributed to GM crops are the result of monoculture agriculture and modern farming practices rather than GM crops themselves.

    With the company Monsanto there is a myth flying around that evil fat cats sit around thinking up ways to make money by screwing the environment. It would be more accurate to say Genetic modification was first used as a method to solve specific problems.
     
  7. Zfactor

    Zfactor New Member

    Hah, I feared my Greenpeace example would cause more confusion then help my argument... I didn't mean to spark a debate about GE crops, I am sure we all have our views on them and they are different but the Religion board is not the best place to debate it. I picked greenpeace SPECIFICALLY because it is not a religious movement, rather a nonreligious group that uses the same kind of tactics as many twisted inviduals under the guise of religoin. Let's just toss it away since it would be more trouble than good for me to elaborate on the connection that I was thinking of (and didn't convey).

    I hope that I am not misrepresenting your argument in this reply, and if you feel that I am then definately call me on it.

    I believe I understand the point you are trying to make here, however I think that what you are describing is leaning more towards disjoint individuals or groups (disjoint from society and disjoint from the religion that they claim to be based in) who use religion to manipulate others to serve personal or group goals. Most of the time these are simply cults that use group think and mob mentality to make people do things they wouldn't normally do. While they may be under the guise of religion, when we look closer we find the reality: that they covered up their own self-serving intentions by making (mostly loose) connections to some religion. I don't see how anybody could argue against this kind of thing being bad, and I certainly won't even try.

    However, there is danger in attributing these groups to a whole (namely some religion). The danger is that people begin to project the actions of disjoint cults and groups to those who are in a religion that is nothing like them (the extremeist groups). This is where I take exception. It is irrational to make these kinds of connections. The real villians that we should be paying attention to are the people who keep organizing these cults and groups, not the religions that they claim to be connected to.

    Terrorists are an example that support my argument over yours IMO. "Mainstream" muslims do not support the use of terrorism to further their beliefs. This is a prime example of a group who uses religion as a cover for alterior motives.

    Most of the groups that make the headlines are composed of some leader or leading group misusing religion to rope in weaker minded individuals (not meant as an insult) to do things that they would not normally do. Problem is that since they are operating under the cover of religion, it seems to be much easier for people to blame the religion instead of the individual.

    I think that the organization helps people who want to hold true to their personal beliefs with a support system. When some people stop being involved in churches they tend to wane from their religious beliefs. Which I suppose is not of much consequence if they were just raised to be religious and never actually put thought into it. However when somebody has deeply considered their beliefs and came to the conclusion that the religion is in line with them, it is beneficial for that person to have the support of the organization to help them through troubling times that test their beliefs.

    Again, do call me on any instances where you feel that I misrepresented your arguments.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2006
  8. Gary

    Gary Vs The Irresistible Farce Supporter

    Religion is the people.
     
  9. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    It's easier. If I had to yell at everybody I don't like who has a specific religion in common with one-another, I'd never get any sleep. It's just easier to call an entire religion stupid.

    Also, because religion more often than not brainwashes people.
     
  10. BendzR

    BendzR New Member

    Zfactor, maybe you somewhat misunderstood my view on it, but most of it you got.

    I was not saying one is justified in hating a religion because of those who ruin it for everyone.

    I agree. I do feel that Religion is a tool that is used to cover up alterior motives.
    This does not mean it always is, but it can be. That's my issue.

    A person that isn't destructive towards society, and a muslim at the same time, would not really be effected negatively if they took their religion, and kept it as a private, personal philosophy.

    But, a person that is destructive and easily fooled by cult-like religion-based situations, would benefit greatly if organised religions did not exist.

    So, if you take just the potential host that Religions are to Cults, then I think it is fair to say that eliminating the organised nature of religions (not the religion themselves) there would be more positives than negatives.

    I guess you could say my beef isn't really with Religions, but the potential they have to be used for alternative crap. I think the world would be way better if everyone kept their beliefs and philosophies to themselves (doesn't mean they have to be discarded or hated), and weak minds will remain safe - as well as many others - instead of burning in jetfuel fire.
     
  11. Sankaku-jime

    Sankaku-jime Banned Banned

    Why hate on religion instead of the people in it?


    because its easier than thinking
     
  12. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    You just hit the nail on the head.

    We're all mentaly lazy to some degree, some more than others. It's so nice and easy to put people into pigeon-holes, or to associate certain groups with certain characteristics. It holds true for religions, races, nationalities, fans of certain football clubs, practitioners of certain MA's.... etc.... etc....
     

Share This Page