Your problems with religions (Compilation)

[Ate The Ism]

Hello everyone, this is my first topic on WWGHA and I thought hey, why not go for broke and compile the numerous problems with modern religions. I don't want to set too many limitations as not to seem like I'm singling out any religion, but I will admit that I am mostly referring to the top religions of today, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

This may have been done already (though I sincerely hope not) but this topic would greatly help me in my personal debates with creationists. The overall goal of this topic is to address why religions can not be correct by pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions, etc.

All replies are appreciated

[jetson]

They are each inherently exclusive, by definition.

[ParkingPlaces]

They narrow the range of possible human endeavors by finding/creating limits and calling it good. How much do most religions embrace science, for instance. Let alone same sex marriage. And they claim they are right due to a higher power, even though said power is not evident otherwise. But that's good enough for them.

I always describe it as making their world "tiny". Some people like it that way. But I sort of dislike artificial limits on me. I'm fine that I shouldn't rob banks, but don't tell me that evolution is all false or that reading something besides the bible will curdle my brain.

I guess they are afraid of anything that might cause their belief set to be challenged. I don't mind having my beliefs challenged by new facts and new sources. I spend more time that I should every day on the web reading science, social science, history and political stuff. It's addicting, but at least it's not carefully chosen misinformation, which is all I would be allowed if the religious controlled the world.

[Ate The Ism]

It's addicting, but at least it's not carefully chosen misinformation, which is all I would be allowed if the religious controlled the world.

They don't? 

I should clarify, I do want to compile each religion's inconsistencies, or problems in general, but was unsure if there was anything in the rules on "attacking" specific religions. I'm going to assume that there isn't and choose Christianity to debunk and invite any and everyone to also debunk, or rebut, any claims being made.

I realize that there is a contradiction section for the bible and that this entire forum shares the same aim in gathering theists and atheists to discuss and debate religious doctrine, I just couldn't think of a better idea for a first topic. I'd simply like a list of scriptures that are absurd, immoral, self-contradictory, inconsistent, incorrect, etc.

Anyway, I will begin collecting my information against Christianity and try to post very soon and I hope that when I return to this post there are several comments to read through 

[ParkingPlaces]

Not to worry. We are equal opportunity religion bashers. We were accidentally nice to a seventh day adventist once, but then he made us eat some bean sprouts and that ended that.

[Tero]

Inability of theists to see how their religion is part of their culture, even if we do not argue the theology itself, god etc. religious elements.

[Boots]

One of my bigger beefs with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is what I call "desensitization to absurdities."  Religions tend to have, well, crazy stuff like people walking on water, healing leprosy, casting out demons into a heard of pigs then driving htem over a cliff, and the walking dead.  And people BELIEVE this stuff happened.  Once their brains have been desensitized to believe craziness, mroe crazy can more esaily make its way into there (like rationalizations of why this crazy stuff doesn't happen in modern times, or that it DOES happen in modern times . . . I coud go on but it only depresses me).

Tied to this is the tendency of a the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.  If someone in some authority said it, IT'S TRUE DAGUMMIT.  When the authority becomes dillholes like Rush Out-On-A-Limbaugh or Glen Beck, that's when stuff gets really dicey.

[ParkingPlaces]

The inability to question why it is that their religion (the one they were born into or chose because it was nearby) is exactly the right one while all the others are obviously wrong. Especially those in other parts of the world.

A christian here recently said that even if he'd been born in India he's still be a christian because there are christians there just didn't get it. Nor do any of the others.

[nogodsforme]

The arrogance of thinking that a being with the power to create the cosmos and put life in it would spend time worried about what language people should speak, what animals they should eat, what clothes they should wear, which books they should read, what sex positions they should use, what kind of pictures they can draw, and whether or not they cut pieces off their genitalia.

Why would the most powerful force that ever existed care whether humans on one tiny obscure planet worshipped it, prayed in one direction or another, lied, cheated, stole, or used its name in vain? Do humans care what the bacterial life between the bricks in the basement of the old abandoned building on the next block think about? Do we wonder about the morality of viruses in the stomachs of those critters that live on the bottom of the ocean and never see light?
 
The universe operates just as if there was no powerful being involved. No religion or group ever shows any irrefutable sign that they have contacted or heard from this being. No relgious text has given humans any magical knowledge or demonstrates any special powers.

The most sense is that there may be a deist type of god that created everything and has since gone about his business. He ain't interested, ain't listening, ain't helping and we are on our own. But there is no evidence for or even reason for such a being, so why even bother speculating?

[jetson]

nogods - its the age old problem of God appearing to have the same petty issues and concerns that humans do.  Coincidence?  I doubt it!  More likely - SPAG.  It's been with us from Adam and Eve until today...err. wait?

[ParkingPlaces]

To go along with nogodsforme's post. The belief that the world was made just for us and we can do whatever we want with it. Years ago, early in the environmental movement era, a baptist minister said we didn't have to be careful with this world. If we used it up, god would give us another one.

Such arrogance. And such insensitivity to demonstrably real problems. Global warming, wilderness preservation, water pollution, fisheries depletion: though others also dismiss the seriousness of the problem, I don't see Pat Robertson in a tizzy over any of those things.

The pope has mentioned his concern about global warming, but I notice that little Ricky Santorum's catholicism doesn't extend that far.

[jetson]

Not to worry. We are equal opportunity religion bashers. We were accidentally nice to a seventh day adventist once, but then he made us eat some bean sprouts and that ended that.

I have a nice piece of clear saran wrap over my screen, thank you very much.  I'll not have you do this to me again without consequences!  I've still got a keyboard to worry about.  Maybe I ought not be drinking liquids whilst posting?

[Death over Life]

Is it cool to just post videos that you agree with, or do I have to post my own points as well? I may have an essay to write if I have to post everything wrong with all of it. In case of the former, here are just 2 videos that express my anti-Christianity/religion somewhat. Forgive the 2nd video since Varg is advocating Odin as a God, which I disagree with as well.

[monkeymind]

Gods tend be accredited with supernatural powers like omniwhatever.

If God has "super"natural powers they are "above" nature so we can't measure them.

If those powers somehow interact with nature, then we can measure them. We haven't... for centuries. When we do measure something, we are able to see that it is natural and requires no god in the explanation.

Most everything that was once attributed to god(s) has been shown to have a natural explanation. The things that we do not yet understand are shrinking. There is now a very small place in which people put god.

Likely, there will always be some things that we do not know or understand. When we hear god...is there... we can send our scientists... there and they can discover something useful.


ADDED: That is the best thing I can think of about religion!

[screwtape]

My two basic problems with religion are faith and ignorance.

Faith is a fine and necessary thing to have when rooted in experience.  We could not function without taking for granted some things.  I have faith in my wife.  That comes from having years of experiences with her.  She and I could not live together if we did not have some basic trust in each other.  I have faith in the medicines I buy - that they are what they say they are, that apart from unforseen allergies they will not harm me, that they will make me better.  That comes from knowing the FDA is there and from years of experience.  I could not stay healthy without some basic trust in medicine.  I have faith in the scientific method.  That comes from observing the products of science - technology, medicine, etc.  Most importantly, it can be tested.

Faith in gods is blind faith.  Nobody has had an unabmiguous experience with a god.  Many theists say they have, but it always turns out that there is absolutely no way to verify it was a god.  People who claim to have agents of gods (like the holy spirit) counsel them cannot objectively distinguish whether they are bona fide supernatural critters or their own overactive imaginations.  When we suggest we apply modern hypothesis testing to the efficacy of prayer, they whip out the con man's mantra - thou shalt not test the lord.  Why not?  What's the lord afraid of? 

On top of that they think they have other evidence.  Anomalous healings, weird coincidences, "feelings", "just knowing".  None of these things are meaningful data. They are a collection of logical falacies, examples of confirmation bias and failures of analysis.   

The second part of the religious problem is it proudly answers questions with ignorance.  How did the universe begin?  God did it.  Well, where did god come from?  He just was.  Answers nothing.  How did people come to be?  God did it.  Well, how did god come to be?  He just was.  Answers nothing.  How does lightning work?  God makes it happen.  How?  One more question out of you, Mr Heretic, and you'll be burnt at the stake. God is the stupid man's answer to relevant questions.  It is essentially an invitation to shut up and stop asking questions.

Religion keeps us stupid.

[Ate The Ism]

Thank you everyone for your input. I completely agree with desensitization to absurdities, like circumcision or infanticide. It still bothers me how any theist can read these passages and think yeah, this needs to be in a classroom. Kids are already so easily manipulated, my fear is that science will lose this battle in exchange for false comfort.

Religion keeps us stupid.

Exactly.

Such arrogance. And such insensitivity to demonstrably real problems. Global warming, wilderness preservation, water pollution, fisheries depletion: though others also dismiss the seriousness of the problem, I don't see Pat Robertson in a tizzy over any of those things.

I blame society for making me initially read Rob Pattinson :/

[Ate The Ism]

Last night I heard my friend exclaiming, in defense of his religion, that the odds of life coming into existence are so slim, the odds of the universe forming perfectly are so minute that it's an argument in favor of god. Christians come this far, but no further. The analogy to this idea is that it is just as likely for the universe to form perfectly as it is for a hurricane to blow through a junk yard and correctly assemble a Boeing 747. Dawkins has argued that if this is true then it must be just as likely for god to exist (almost 0% chance) because god has "designed" the universe. I'll give a link to his argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

[flapdoodle64]

2 of my biggest problems with religion:

1. Sadistic elements of the Abrahamic religions...such as mutilating the genitals of newborn babies, and the celebration of a god who arranges for his only son to be tortured to death.  I think the celebration of this kind of sadism has an effect on people...it not only terrifies them, but I think it carries and implicit message that torture is justified.  You look at all the horrorible torture and violence that characterizes religious groups, especially the Inquisition, Holy Wars, suicide bombers...theists excuse this behavior as extremism, but the great god Yahweh condones and encourages this stuff...modern theists refuse to confront the violence of their god.

2. Brainwashing children with myths and horror stories (see above) from the time they are able to talk is unethical.  Every religion I've seen does this to children.  If theists believed their doctrine really made sense, they would at least wait till a child was in grade school or middle school to start teaching it...they would teach it when the child starts to develope critical, independent thinking skills.  But no, they have to get all the terror and magical thinking downloaded before a child can question it. 

[shnozzola]

What we see in our area presently is the building of the mega churches.  Gymnasiums, theaters, parking for a thousand cars, with carefully manicured lawns, the latest best elevators/escalaters, coffee houses, huge stone fireplaces, don’t forget the cafeteria/bistro – it really sickens me. 

While he may still be deluded, I can respect the deeds of the raggety old preacher that drives an old beetle and works in the soup kitchen, and weeps when he speaks of the poor.

http://churchesbydaniels.com/dev/index.php/portfolio-gallery

[DumpsterFire]

Last night I heard my friend exclaiming, in defense of his religion, that the odds of life coming into existence are so slim, the odds of the universe forming perfectly are so minute that it's an argument in favor of god. Christians come this far, but no further. The analogy to this idea is that it is just as likely for the universe to form perfectly as it is for a hurricane to blow through a junk yard and correctly assemble a Boeing 747. Dawkins has argued that if this is true then it must be just as likely for god to exist (almost 0% chance) because god has "designed" the universe. I'll give a link to his argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

I have read elsewhere on this forum (sorry, can't remember the thread or author) the very correct assertion that arguing the probability of a thing that exists existing is fallacious - life exists, therefore the probability of life existing = 1. One way I like to equate it is to imagine the nearly unlimited possible combinations of sperm and egg in the entirety of human existence. If any one sperm or egg in your family lineage had been different you would not exist. This can be a difficult thing to fully grasp. The odds that every sperm/egg combination in your entire family history would eventually lead to the combo that made you are astronomically long. I'm no mathematician, but I would guess the odds against it are probably in the trillions. Yet, here you are. The probability that you exist = 1.

[Ate The Ism]

I have read elsewhere on this forum (sorry, can't remember the thread or author) the very correct assertion that arguing the probability of a thing that exists existing is fallacious - life exists, therefore the probability of life existing = 1. One way I like to equate it is to imagine the nearly unlimited possible combinations of sperm and egg in the entirety of human existence. If any one sperm or egg in your family lineage had been different you would not exist. This can be a difficult thing to fully grasp. The odds that every sperm/egg combination in your entire family history would eventually lead to the combo that made you are astronomically long. I'm no mathematician, but I would guess the odds against it are probably in the trillions. Yet, here you are. The probability that you exist = 1.

I like this answer. However, it doesn't stop people from making the argument  Maybe I should start using the sperm analogy you gave

[Boots]

The other one you can use is to shuffle a deck of cards, then deal them all out.  The probability of you ahving dealt that particular order of 52 cards is astronomically low (1 in 52 factorial), yet you just did.

Or playing golf.   A guy drives the ball, and it lands on the fairway.  It hits a blade of grass.  That blade of grass can say "Gee, of the billions of blades of grass on all the golf courses in all the world, THAT guy's ball hit ME!!  What are the odds?!?!?"  Well, it had to hit SOMEthing, didn't it??

Or a falling leaf in autumn.  What are the odds that that one leaf falls in that one particular trajectory and covers that one particular spot?  Pretty slim--yet it just did.

People don't understnad probability (hell, I *barely* do), and theists use that to their advantage.

[freakygin]

Actually, i don't have problem with religions.
I used to had one myself..

I don't have anything against God
I don't hate certain religion
I don't hate religious person

I just don't like those FANATICS
Who think they are better than us (Atheist) because they have religion.

In my point of view,
Good guy are good guy. Assholes are assholes.
No matter what religion they believe in.

But in my case, what i don't like about fundamental Christian is.
They always use Bible as a shield.
When we found something's wrong with the verse
"You shouldn't take it too literally, it's a symbol"

Damn it! It's all just based on their own assumption!

Then of course, if i'm not one of them, the lovely hell is waiting for me.

What a nice thing to say to your friend.

[DumpsterFire]

Or playing golf.   A guy drives the ball, and it lands on the fairway.  It hits a blade of grass.  That blade of grass can say "Gee, of the billions of blades of grass on all the golf courses in all the world, THAT guy's ball hit ME!!  What are the odds?!?!?"  Well, it had to hit SOMEthing, didn't it??

So in this scenario, the odds against the golf ball settling on (I say 'settling on' because a ball is capable of 'hitting' many blades while still in motion) a particular blade of grass is > 1 billion to 1. But the odds of the ball settling on any blade of grass = 1.

Another way of looking at it is that the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are approx. 175 million to 1, but once the numbers for a particular drawing have been picked, the odds that a ticket which has the same numbers on it will be a winner = 1.

The day it occurred to me that if any sperm/egg pairing in my entire lineage had been different I would not exist, my mind = blown.

[orpat]

RELIGIONS ARE MADE BY HOMO SAPIENS WHO WERE APES IN THE PAST. WE ARE APES EVEN NOW.

IMHO, RELIGION IS FAKE. GOD IS TRUTH

[bertatberts]

Last night I heard my friend exclaiming, in defense of his religion, that the odds of life coming into existence are so slim, the odds of the universe forming perfectly are so minute that it's an argument in favor of god. Christians come this far, but no further. The analogy to this idea is that it is just as likely for the universe to form perfectly as it is for a hurricane to blow through a junk yard and correctly assemble a Boeing 747. Dawkins has argued that if this is true then it must be just as likely for god to exist (almost 0% chance) because god has "designed" the universe. I'll give a link to his argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

Dr Robert Stovold Wrote in the magazine http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/ This, which is a brilliant way of putting it. I quote "Sandwiched between a plagiarised biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as (and I paraphrase) “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”.  I’ve refuted both lies with an analogy that I’ve used for years, which I’ll share with Freethinker readers in the form of an amusing conversation I once had with a Creationist:

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!

Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?

Creationist: Yes.

Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?

Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.

Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well?  Why do the small flakes fall further?

Creationist: I don’t know.

Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps.  The flakes sieve themselves.  Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required.  Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”.  Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively.  Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.

Creationist: There must be more to it than that?  There must be!  There has to be!

[Walks away scratching his head....]" hope that helps

[Dante]

GOD IS TRUTH

Prove it.

[Omen]

RELIGIONS ARE MADE BY HOMO SAPIENS WHO WERE APES IN THE PAST. WE ARE APES EVEN NOW.

IMHO, RELIGION IS FAKE. GOD IS TRUTH

There is no self evident god or truth, you're evoking another religious belief.  The definition of a religion is an ideology that includes supernatural elements, such as a god.  You have a religion, you are expressing a religion, and your attempt to distance from the word 'religion' is purely semantic.

[Hatter23]

The problems with Religion( or God belief if we insist on splitting hairs) are manifold;

The number one is that no logical arguement can be put forth to support the belief in any deity. None. Deism runs into an argument from ignorance, every other relgion has that plus special pleading.

All Gnostic religions then have a dogma, that is a set of beliefs that are held to be more important than evidence itself. What better way to never overcome an error in thinking than to say "IGNORE EVIDENCE" it absolutely means that you are willing to be blind to truth.

Now, where the rubber meets the road, the most common dogmatic religions in the world today deal in absolutes. Intangible, unprovable absolutes. I.E. If you were a completely sincere Catholic and though that eating meat on a Friday would cause you to burn in hell forever, you would be completely justified in setting on fire a busload of children on their way to McDonald's on a Friday because the breif pain they experienced from being burned to death was nothing compared to the eternal torments of Hell. You would be therefore doing an act of kindness by setting children on fire. Unprovable absolutes create this sort of situation, because you are to ignore the evidence of the horrific act, and instead stick to the dogma.