Dissecting the "all religions are bad" argument

You don't count the dead when God's on your side...

 

It's not so much that all religions are bad. It's more that they're all wrong. Not a single one in the history of humankind has been able to accurately describe the universe as we know it. I mean I'm sure there's some Youtube video where someone uses a Biblical quote of say, "And then there was light," to describe the Big Bang or something, but that's a huge reach that not even the Pope would claim. And it's hard to fault any of the authors in the Bible, or any religious text given that they were most likely written thousands of years ago before inventions like telescopes and microscopes.

Back then, someone sprawling around uncontrollably could be described as being possessed by demons or devils. Today, we could call that a seizure.

An invisible illness our own eyes can't see besides the bodily decay it has on someone could be described back then as losing fortune with God and being punished for it. Nowadays we apply germ theory instead of using some moral law to say a sick person deserves it.

So IMO applying religious moral law using outdated text from thousands of years ago is not a good approach in our modern social climate. We know so much more now than we did back then. Thousands of years ago it would have made complete sense to be religious. Today though, not so much. There's just too much evidence that goes against it.

 

This is true, but I don't think it matters at all. As far as my understanding of religion that isn't the point or purpose of religion. The point isn't to have a science book, but a book that gives insight to making one's spirit improved. The creation story is a poem. It is written in the format and meter of a type of poem that was very common at the time. I don't know of any poems that aim for their purpose to be a scientifically correct text.

I understand that people still argue that their version of religion is scientific fact and try to argue about it being correct, but I think they are missing the point as well.

 

Why wouldn't you expect text that's supposed to be the literal word of God to be scientifically accurate? Why would an all knowing God be good with people having a seizure instead face false accusations of demonic possession? Why is an all knowing deity ascribing to 3,000 year old social customs, morality and extremely limited scientific understanding? Why wouldn't an all knowing deity actually have all the answers if the literal word of God is in these books? I think that sets the bar low for an all knowing deity to say that it's word is not meant to be scientifically accurate. It's just supposed to make you feel things and hopefully be a better person for it.

You mention spirit, yet science says there is no such thing as a soul or a spirit world. Science says the life you live is the only one you get. Science says that the life you live is not a dress rehearsal where any suffering or good deeds you do will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven. Science says that this is the one and only life you get and that's it. This is not even a debatable topic regarding the finality of death according to science. It's already a case closed discussion that can only be replied with a, "You don't know for sure!" There are some lone scientists that argue that death isn't final, but they're in the minority the same way that global warming denying scientists are, and are viewed with the same skepticism in the scientific community because of the mountain of evidence that leads to death being final.

 

1. I think many religions don't claim their text is the literal word of God. As a Christian, I don't in any way believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. I also think the very concept of God that I have as a Christian is different than the one you are talking about. I know there are Christians who believe the way that you are arguing against, but I can't answer for them.

I will use an example from the bible to get as close as I can to what you are claiming people who believe in religions hold to be true. Before I start many Christians disagree with the way I see the bible. Also, I'm basing my take on the research of others so these ideas aren't my original ideas. So while many disagree with these takes on the Bible, many other Christians see it the same way. If you look at the story of 'an eye for an eye' in the Bible, many see it as a biblical okay for revenge. But at the time society was tribal. Their customs and beliefs were tribal. They battled over resources and lived in a world that could be far more harsh than today's world. If a person from a different tribe stole a goat, it wouldn't be uncommon to set an example to keep future thefts from happening to go and attack the person or people who stole the goat. The people who were then attacked by the other tribe would be upset and may go and burn down the village where the attackers came from. The people of the village would then see that group as hostile and declare war on them and curse them for ten generations. Those kinds of interactions were common in the area. The part of the old testament where "an eye for an eye" comes from is in a list of other laws. So an eye for an eye is a law. It was put into place to limit the retribution. It was meant to be set forth as a way to say only an eye for an eye is allowed. Nothing more would be allowed. It limited not justified violence. It was a step forward, but it wasn't the end goal even though it came from God. If the law said when someone steals your goal or kills somebody, just go and hug them, nobody would buy into it and take any steps anywhere. So that was a step forward toward love. This idea is backed up by Jesus own discussions on it later in the New Testament. Even at that time, people were misusing the "eye for an eye" biblical text.

So while don't exactly believe in the concept of an all knowing deity the way you mean it, I will say an all knowing deity will give people what they can handle and deal with at the time. At the time the stories of the Bible were written, that was what the humans could handle, and they had to take steps or baby steps.

2. The mention of spirit - Science doesn't say that there is no such thing as a soul, but that there isn't proof of a soul. That being said, I don't worry about any other life after this one either. The only prayer Jesus ever taught his followers said to try and make life on earth as it is in heaven. So the goal of the religion is also to this life the way they believe it is in heaven. The focus is always about this life here on earth.

 

I agree with you regarding the silliness of the man created god and god myths. A lot of times, religious people for whatever reason are unable to see the historical context of religion. That every civilization has had a concept of god and the stories are always very similar.

Anyway, on the concept of science I would disagree with you. There are many concepts throughout history where science disproved the prevailing science. So just because science cannot currently prove the existence of a soul or an afterlife of some sort doesn't really shut the door on the concept. And by afterlife I don't mean angels floating around in the sky, I mean a reincarnation of souls and such. Whether a soul is simply the animation provided by the brain that dies when the brain dies or the soul is some energy force that comes to a body in conception and such. Perhaps the soul is a man made myth, much like god but it's much more difficult to sort out than merely god. Basically, what is life? Is life merely your brain or something more?

 

Religion deal with personal experience, not the physical universe. I think if they are kept apart in that way, they can co-exist happily together. But for some reason, folks need to force one onto the other. I would agree that physical universe, as we understand it through science can deal with personal experience, but only to a certain limit at this point. It get quite messy and weird when a person point of view is involved and alter the outlook of physical phenomenon. So I think the separate is still quite clear at this point.

 

So you accept that text from the Bible was written thousands of years ago by man? Just that that text is inspired by God or something? And the reason that the text reflects times from thousands of years ago and not now is because people back then couldn't handle our modern day scientific understanding? But now we can? If so, why are we using outdated text for people that could only handle a limited understanding of the world around them. What makes that divine at all? Because as an example, eye for an eye was meant to limit the amount of death committed by one another? And it worked? Do all the thieves and murderers in modern times and the thousands of years since this text know about this? If so, why haven't they stopped? It's written in the divine text like you said. I don't think it takes text from thousands of years ago to realize that killing and theft are bad. I don't think there's anything holy about making that distinction at all.

You say God only gives what you can handle. Do dying infants with unrepairable diseases know this? What of the parts of the globe where suffering happens for no good reason? How come all those dead people can't handle it and suffer in some of the worst ways imaginable because of it? What of God and say the people stuck in Syria? Are the Syrians suffering right now only being given what they can handle? How come they're not handling it then? What of those still enduring genocide in Darfur? Does an entire civilization of people that are being wiped out for no good reason know they can handle it because of God? Your reasoning makes no sense.

As far as the soul goes, we'd have discovered it by now. We're at a point in modern technology where we can take energy scans of our own body. Every single study conducted on our own body has shown that we all abide by the laws of physics. If even just 1% of ourselves didn't, then there would be an argument to be made for a soul. That means there's 1% of something that is beyond our understanding of physics that could constitute as a possible spirit energy. But there isn't. 100% of our body abides by physics. That includes our own thought processes as well as every single metabolic process our body does. If there is a spirit world, 0% of it has any effect on our daily lives. Given that a spirit has never been proven to exist, and the fact even if it was to exist, it'd have zero effect in every moment of our lives, why even enter it into the discussion at all?

Your points of outdated science being replaced by modern science is true. That said, Newton's theory of gravity is still accurate enough to get you to the moon and is still used in a lot of science despite Einstein's General Theory of Relativity being a far better approximation when it comes to gravity. Einstein's theory of gravity didn't disprove Newton's theory. It made better, more accurate approximations than Newton's theory is all. That said, it was Newton's theory that was used to send our astronauts to the moon.

At this point in time, there is no theory at all of a provable afterlife or a soul. There's no theory of afterlife, because all evidence of an afterlife isn't there. It's not so much that science is out to disprove things. It's just out to prove what is really there with the best evidence and theories available. The idea of a soul and a spirit world are not theories scientists draw their conclusions on based on the mountain of evidence that says otherwise. It's not the best theory with the data available. It's not the second or third best theory with the data available. It's one of the worst theories out there, because a lot people that believe in the afterlife can't define what it is exactly they believe in. That's not a feature of the theory. In Computer Science and in any scientific theory, that's considered a bug.

Clearly define what the afterlife is first. Then test it with what we know right now, which is a lot more than you're currently willing to give credit for. I'm willing to bet your definition will either be incredibly vague or just flat out wrong.

 

I don't think we've reached the utmost in understanding today. I think we still need to work to enlighten ourselves and reach a higher level of understanding. Our science has grown, or enlightenment towards peace, love, justice has also moved, but we are nowhere near the level of what Christ was talking about. As far as an eye for an eye goes it did work to an extent. We know longer as a whole have generations-long blood feuds. Punishment has gotten more humane since those times. That being said it is still imperfect. An eye for an eye was already being misused by the time of the new testament and is often misused today. But there is little doubt that it was a step in the right direction. The fact that it worked in lessening slaughter based on minor crimes wouldn't stop all thieves or murderers from committing crimes. I'm not sure why you asked about that.

Yes, I think humans wrote the Bible. I also agree with you that we don't need thousand-year-old texts to know that killing and thefts are bad. Again, I don't think the idea of the Bible is just a list of what is and isn't allowed, though many use it that way. But the bible tells a story and teaches lessons on love and forgiveness. We do still need lessons on that. It is evident by looking around, at current events, neighborhoods etc.

What I think is holy or divine is the idea that you should love those who have done harm to you and your family. That isn't the normal reaction or the natural human reaction. But to do that consistently would make the world a much better place, and would probably help reduce the occurrences of people doing harm. Martin Luther King Jr. proved how powerful it could be when adopted non-violence as a technique to battle against those that were harming protestors. Even Americans who weren't actively racist were apathetic towards the civil rights movement because they weren't affected by it, and were happy to just believe they weren't racists themselves. However when they saw innocents being attacked with police dogs, batons, and fire hoses, but not fighting back and "turning the other cheek". That's when things changed. The general public saw the injustice highlighted and things got better on that front. They aren't perfect, but rising above the human reaction of striking back when beaten and attacked, they advanced their goals and society at large.

When I mentioned giving a society what they can handle, I was talking about concepts of justice, love, and things like that. I wasn't talking about specific occurrences of anything.

I don't think God is giving infants, Syrians, people in Darfur is giving them those things. Again, by the Bible God is love, and love isn't doing any of those things to any of those people.

However, in the cases where humans are the cause of the suffering and death, following God's messages of love would help end it. It might also increase research and funding into stopping the unrepairable diseases inflicting the infants as well.

There is a lot that doesn't make sense in the world, but the idea that more good will and love will help medical research and stop genocides makes perfect sense.

And I'm not saying that you or anyone else has to believe like I believe. I'm just explaining my own thoughts at this stage in my development.

If people acted with love more, things would be better. They don't have to call it Christianity or any other religion. It doesn't matter to me what it's called. What matters is that message.

 

All the stuff in bold I can agree with, but it doesn't require a belief in God or any religious texts to draw the same conclusions. I'm all for world peace and helping those less fortunate. I personally think humanity is only as strong as it's weakest human being. This is probably from playing too many video games like Fallout where you can customize the look of your character, but not a single person got to decide what they'd look like, who their parents are, what point in history they would be born in, what part of the globe they'd be born in, what the social climate was like where they were born, the amount of wealth and status they'd have from their family, or genetic pre-dispositions and random mutations that cause cancer or other life threatening illnesses. None of us get to decide any of that.

Otherwise I think chronic terminally ill patients would have chosen a healthier functioning body. Those suffering from racism based on skin color, would probably have chosen the preferred skin color where they live or would prefer to live on a part of the globe where their skin color doesn't determine their livelihood. I think ugly people would choose to be better looking. I think everyone would choose to have wealth to be able to afford all necessities that life requires as well as luxuries. I think everyone would choose to be born at some point in the future where maybe world peace is in fact attained, fighting over resources is a past time, all diseases are curable and preventable and discrimination of any type doesn't exist. But we don't get to decide any of those things. We deal with the reality we're dealt. There's no morality to be found to explain why I live on a peaceful part of the globe, yet some dying infant in Syria isn't right now. But I do agree if somehow world peace was attained, suffering like a dying infant in a chaotic environment would cease too. At the same time, you don't need God or religious text to see something that obvious IMO.

 

Do you believe the "creation story" as you put it? Just curious. The way you answered this seemed strange given you are a Christian. By improving ones spirit assume you mean their soul as in the truth shall set you free?

 

Again your answers are confusing. I am not sure if you are just trying to answer in a way you think an atheist would understand or if you believe this way. Yes man wrote the Bible there is no doubt about that. The question I would ask you is do you think the scriptures are inspired by God? Do you think man just came up with the scripture are were they written by God through man in your opinion? You know how I believe, I just want to make sure I understand you.

 

The creation story is a poem. It is poetry and not science. That is how it was written in the Bible. I don't believe it is the scientific explanation of how the earth came into existence. It is perhaps a poetic simplification with some errors of how the earth came into existence. Either way, I don't think it is worth worrying about that much since the Bible was never meant to be a science book.

 

I do believe they were inspired by God (Love). But man who wrote it is still imperfect.

 

So do you believe the creation story? Do you believe God spoke the world / universe into existence? Sorry to put you on the spot but I am starting to think I overestimated your belief in God. I do believe in Creation by God and do not think it is at odds with science at all.

 

It is at odds with science. You can't mesh the two together. It doesn't matter what you believe either.

 

I am not sure what you mean and do not really care. You seem to have your mind made up already. You are free to believe as you want. I was replying to a fellow Christian.

 

Well, you don't get to judge my belief in God. That isn't for you. That isn't your job or anything you should do according to the Bible.

No God didn't speak the universe or the world into existence. Why would anyone believe the literal translation of ancient form of Hebrew poetry? Do you understand the idea of poetic license and imagery? Do you deny ancient Hebrew poetry the ability to use those concepts? I'm curious about your understanding of the Bible.

You are free to disagree with me. It's no problem. I won't judge you for your beliefs, and you aren't in a place to judge me for mine.

 

Since we are free to believe what we want and have a right to express it I'll just come out and say anyone who literally believes in the biblical creation story is an idiot and any smart person who expresses it like Ben Carson is merely pandering to the idiot base or were severely brainwashed as children and compartmentalize their idiocy.