|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:06 am
Darrel Ray wrote the book, The God Virus and in it takes the growing view point that belief in a God is more like a nasty virus that completely changes the people and causes them to be more hostile to those who don't fit into their newly acquired or old and just reinforced view point. Should we approach religion in such a way? Isn't it dangerous to think of people as infected because they hold a belief in a world outside of the natural world? What sort of implications does Darrel Ray's message hold? Source: Book at Amazon.com
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:15 am
No, I dont agree.
Even though some people take religion and use it to deny rights, and cause disharmony..There are also people who's lives would not be the same, not be happy without religion. To say religion is a virus and put the 2 type of people in the same group is...just stupid.
And the same type of the first gruop, are the same without religion. Then you get jackasses like "The Amazing Atheist" who is unhappy and as we know, misery loves company.
But I would give the book a read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:07 am
I can't say whether I agree or not.
My younger sister's mother user to be fairly liberal until she joined the "Vinyard Fellowship", which is a christian church in our town. After joining she became extremely conservative and eventually her marriage ended because of it.
On the flip side, my current lover is fairly christian in his beliefs and we've never had a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:36 am
No, I don't agree at all.
If someone is going to be a jackass, they're going to be a jackass, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof). Most "religious" arguments don't stem from the religion, but from bigotry and hate. People will always find a way to bring "validity" to their opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:48 am
I might would put some stock in this if it weren't for the fact that people will use ANTHING to put others down and act like they are better than someone, this includes age, race, gender, political views, location, job, amount of money, culture, subculture, clothing, eye color, height, weight, overall appearance, amount of fame, ect...
Also, as it was stated above there are those of every religion who use their religion as an excuse for bigotry and hate, but there are also those who are pure of heart in their religions..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:43 pm
I will say I don't agree entirely on the book.
However, I would be lying if I said people aren't like that.
I have met people like this and it was even the cause of my popularity in school years ago to become nothing but someone to shun.
But that doesn't mean everyone with a belief has to be like this.
It's just that there is the possibility.
I don't think religion should be to blamed, though.
More of the person who holds such a religion so dearly.
People that don't agree with other people just because they have different views seems like a self-centered idea but it IS happening.
Only problem is that it could be any belief, not religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:44 pm
Taerinn No, I don't agree at all. If someone is going to be a jackass, they're going to be a jackass, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof). Most "religious" arguments don't stem from the religion, but from bigotry and hate. People will always find a way to bring "validity" to their opinions. Yup. That pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Religious intolerance is a symptom rather than a root cause of conflicts between people. I'd say one of the root causes would be more like that it is human nature to be weary of that which is unknown or different from yourself... and that sometimes those responses manifest as hate and anger. If it wasn't religion, it could be culture, skin color, sex, gender... whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:15 pm
Why am I now thinking about the Dr. Seuss book with the bird things that were being exclusive based on who had a star on their chest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:32 am
I'm not totally on board with the idea that religion is always good, and it's just the people who are bad. I find some core ideas of certain religions to be inherently bad, and people who follow those religions can actually be good people in spite of what their religion teaches. It's more up to the persons own moral sense, and the choice to ignore the bad ideas present in those religions.
I don't see why political, moral and ethical views are open to criticism, but when it comes to religion, it is seen as a bad thing (probably caused by the social pressure to adhere to "religious tolerance" and political correctness). I think all ideas should be open to criticism, and that suppressing your own beliefs and principles with the intent of being "tolerant" often times does more harm then good. Keeping quiet (which is what tolerance is all about these days) inhibits dialogue and mutual understanding and enables misconceptions to endure.
Even after having discussed certain ideas and convictions, you may still find them repulsive, but having discussion and voicing opinions at the very least clears up some misconceptions. Which I think is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:20 am
Semiremis belief in a God is more like a nasty virus that completely changes the people and causes them to be more hostile to those who don't fit into their newly acquired or old and just reinforced view point. That's not religion. That's subcultures. Just look at High School. (my favorite little petri dish for subculture experiments, as it's a bunch of different subcultures in a bigger subculture, influenced by outside subcultures) You've got the preps who value hygiene and pastels. You have to shop at just the right places, and if you don't fit in perfectly with those ideals, you will be mocked, then shunned, then evicted from that subculture. And once outside, you're 100% vulnerable to any insults and mockery they wish to bestow upon you. Next, let's look at the goths. You dress in all black, have a contempt for the preps and the jocks, and write depressing poetry. If someone doesn't do these things, you tell them to GTFO and you go about your business, probably taking time to mock those who are not in your group of friends. Side note:  (sorry, but I found this picture yesterday and was just looking for an excuse to use it.) I could go on, but you get my point. Any subculture has norms and values that its members are required to follow. These members gain a certain element of respect in other members' eyes that is not given to those outside the subculture. So, basically, subcultures completely change the people and cause them to be more hostile to those who don't fit into their newly acquired or old and just reinforced view point. So now, for your questions: Semiremis Should we approach religion in such a way? Nope. Semiremis Isn't it dangerous to think of people as infected because they hold a belief in a world outside of the natural world? Incredibly. I mean, just think about GLBT individuals. The term homosexual was actually coined to describe what people thought was a disease, and if it's a disease, it can and should be fixed. This lead to some difficult (extreme understatement) times for gay people. Semiremis What sort of implications does Darrel Ray's message hold? I think it just adds one more thing for atheists to use to make themselves feel superior to theists. Unless we completely ignore all subcultures in the world, the things Ray describes are not exclusive to religion. So really, as near as I can tell, the sole purpose of this book is to bias people against religion. It seems kind of sleazy to me. Interestingly enough, Ray's book seems "hostile to those who don't fit into [his] newly acquired or old and just reinforced view point." wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:28 am
@ garra_eyes: Thank you for that image. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:19 pm
I can certainly see where he's coming from, but I must state it feels like a case of over-simplification. If you simplify enough, being pregnant is akin to carrying a parasite. Regardless, I agree with an earlier poster: in itself neither good nor evil, but personal will shapes it as it sees fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:25 pm
Artto I'm not totally on board with the idea that religion is always good, and it's just the people who are bad. I find some core ideas of certain religions to be inherently bad, and people who follow those religions can actually be good people in spite of what their religion teaches. It's more up to the persons own moral sense, and the choice to ignore the bad ideas present in those religions. Oh, I don't think I would say religion is always good either. To say such presupposes there is some way to objectify morality, which I don't think is the case at all. But that also means I wouldn't say that any idea in a religion is inherently bad. It may be good or bad, but from a specific point of view and with specific moral and ethnical assumptions. If one judges a said religion as good or bad based on one's own assumptions, though, one should be careful to not fall prey to bigotry against a whole class of people, because as you said, each person's own moral sense may differ from that of the larger faith. Artto I don't see why political, moral and ethical views are open to criticism, but when it comes to religion, it is seen as a bad thing (probably caused by the social pressure to adhere to "religious tolerance" and political correctness). I think all ideas should be open to criticism, and that suppressing your own beliefs and principles with the intent of being "tolerant" often times does more harm then good. Keeping quiet (which is what tolerance is all about these days) inhibits dialogue and mutual understanding and enables misconceptions to endure. I don't know if I see religion as not being open to criticism. I've seen it criticized an awful lot; enough that I wouldn't say it bears less than politics and ethical views in general. I guess we come from two different worlds of experience, eh? wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:55 am
Starlock Oh, I don't think I would say religion is always good either. To say such presupposes there is some way to objectify morality, which I don't think is the case at all. But that also means I wouldn't say that any idea in a religion is inherently bad. It may be good or bad, but from a specific point of view and with specific moral and ethnical assumptions. If one judges a said religion as good or bad based on one's own assumptions, though, one should be careful to not fall prey to bigotry against a whole class of people, because as you said, each person's own moral sense may differ from that of the larger faith. I think that the idea of women being inferior to men in the abrahamic religions(you may say that's up to interpretation, but what you're really doing is just ignoring the idea you think is bad), the idea of jihad in islam, and the idea of all people being horrible because they act human (christianity) are inherently bad. But some people choose to ignore them or "interpret them differently". I can't really see how you can interpret that women should be silent in church. Starlock I don't know if I see religion as not being open to criticism. I've seen it criticized an awful lot; enough that I wouldn't say it bears less than politics and ethical views in general. I guess we come from two different worlds of experience, eh? wink Oh, it's been criticised lately a lot lately, thankfully. But some people are still yelling how that's religious intolerance or bigotry. It's not, it's discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:48 am
that seems like a knee jerk kind of anti-faith bias to me.
anthropologist Walter Burkert writes that religion is a biological inherited trait in all humans, like the art we see on walls of cave dwellings.
for better or worse, that would me we all inherit the tendency to some degrreee; something which could never be said of a virus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
