Poll of the Day > Do you generally have a positive or negative view on religion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

While I am not religious I do see positives to it unlike a lot of people that grew up with strict religious parents that turned away from said religion. I just think a lot of people are weird for acting like religious texts are actual history books and thus is an acceptable reason to kill/hate people that disagree. But from the religions I have looked into it seems most have some good stories/views that people could learn from

---

negative

I am not religious however more power to folk who are. It seems to help them through life but more importantly death.

---

I can respect the positives, but my overall view of religion is negative.

---

Positive on religion as a whole because it motivates and incentivizes a lot of people to at least try to be good to others and a huge portion of the worlds charitable aid comes from religious groups

Im not religious though and Id say I have a somewhat negative view of organized religion because of corruption and the way it can pit people against each other

---

Though I recognize the positives, I don't think they outweigh the negatives.

---

negative.
---

When organized it often seems to be a tool for great evil, but on an individual level it seems like an almost essential part if the human experience if you want to be happy and fulfilled.

I'm not saying it's not possible without it, or that its necessarily going to lead to it on it's own, it's just that the only people I've ever met who seem to be truly happy with their lives have been very spiritual people.

I'm not one of them. I've fucked up a lot and I have a lot of debts to settle so to speak.

---

Positive.

But I'm not an atheist hipster that thinks believing in concepts of faith denotes mental deficiency.

While the history of religions are marred with bloodshed, it is really a problem of rhetoric-believing zealots, which can develop within any belief system.

Overall, churches are good for communities.

---

More negative than positive. It's good for things like giving addicts a non-drug or alcohol-based thing to focus on, or for people who are ethically or morally bankrupt but manage to be guilted into doing what's right because of it... but there's also so much death and destruction and hate that it has caused. I look at it as a cultural relic, but not as something that's really needed now.

Positive, considering it deters vices and promotes better conduct. Likewise, it's somewhat wrongly blamed for certain things that would have occurred in its absence, particularly when it's used as a pretext. That said, it's also enabled some shitbags to gain power, including the current Pope who shielded his pedophile friend from allegations and has generally been a damned disgrace. That's a little bit harder to write off because there's a direct connection.

---

Honestly it's pretty neutral for me, coming from someone that turned away from religion after being raised as a Catholic. I don't think the god or gods you believe or don't believe is important compared to how good you are as a person. That should matter way more

---

Im agnostic. Nobody knows what happens after you die. Religions are just irl headcanons anyway.

I dont think pushing your religion on your kids is cool though. Let them decide for themselves, dont deliberately shelter them from other religions and the fact you can be agnostic in case they find them more attractive.

---

The Universe is too vast to be sure a god-like being doesn't exist.
All world religions are bullshit though.

---

Generally negative. Pretty neutral for religious beliefs, but against "religions" I'm negative

---

I don't really see any positives at all. I guess it helps some people get through hard times, but is it the only answer? I doubt it.

Zareth posted...

The Universe is too vast to be sure a god-like being doesn't exist.

That's not a reason to be sure a god-like being does exist though. But I'd say it's definitely more reasonable to believe in some deistic creator god than any made up fake god of religion.

---

Very negative.

---

If you only act like a good person because you're afraid of punishment from a god, and admit you would lie/cheat/steal/harm otherwise, then newsflash: you're not actually a good person

---

Clench281 posted...

If you only act like a good person because you're afraid of punishment from a god, and admit you would lie/cheat/steal/harm otherwise, then newsflash: you're not actually a good person

Im 100% ok with people doing good stuff for that reason

Just like it doesnt bother me when people do stuff like donate food and money to the homeless only to plaster it all over their social media. Their motivation may not be coming from the right place exactly but the result is the kind of thing that should trend and motivate other people to do the same kinda stuff

---

I don't see anything wrong with it, but I also don't seek it out. In my opinion, the worst people to have to deal with in life are those who are either 1) deeply religious 2) deeply entrenched in politics to one side or the other.

It becomes all they talk about, and I generally ignore both types of people unless I absolutely have to engage with them.

Positive for the most part, even though the more extremist folk have done (and continue to do) pretty terrible things.

---

Pretty negative. It causes a lot of people to just flat out disregard logic and follow what someone else says. Whilst that can occasionally be positive, it's often not. It completely shuts down discussion as well. "I don't think we should be doing x, it's overall bad for people because of these reasons." "No, god says we should do that, don't question god".

It doesn't effectively do it's job of incentivizing most people to be good kind people either.

---

Very negative.


---

Depends on the person. If youre a freaking nut who shoves your religion, whatever it is, down peoples throats, then please stay away from me. I think God and Jesus are cool guys, but some of their followers need improvement.

---

Religion makes God the boss and you the employee. Jesus makes God the father and you the son
I dont know who said this but thats how I look at it. I see Jesus as perfect and try to live everyday like him. If you think that makes me religious then I see it as a positive.

---

Spirituality is generally a good thing, and at its core, religion offers a convenient way to organize, learn, teach, and discuss spirituality in a community setting. That's also a good thing, I'd say. Unfortunately, a lot of organized religions interject a whole lot of other harmful and/or manipulative stuff in there for the personal gain of those at the top, and that's really bad. I don't think that necessarily counts as a point against the concept of religion, though, just that people need to stop accepting and using "it's my religion" as an excuse for doing bad things.

---

Neutral. I'll admit it's done a lot of good and teaches a lot of good ideas, but it has also inspired some of the worst events and ideas in history. The main problem is that people place too much emphasis on it and don't question it as seriously as they should.

---

Negative.

---

Negative.
There are better ways of encouraging positive behavior without crippling critical thinking skills.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I can respect the positives, but my overall view of religion is negative.

This. My personal experience is very negative, but I realize most people probably have a more chill approach than what I grew up with.

But there's also a lot of fundies out there.

---

Positive. I'm always baffled by the people who think religious people would do terrible things if it wasn't for them believing they'd go to hell if they didn't. It's like someone believing that people only play turn-based RPG's because they aren't good enough for real-time combat. I've also seen tons of atheists act no different than the religious fanatics they belittle, if not worse, so it's not like being an atheist makes you somehow 'smart'.

---

Towards spirituality, I have a positive attitude within reason. In regards to religion, as as organization, my attitude is wholly and truly negative.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

I'm always baffled by the people who think religious people would do terrible things if it wasn't for them believing they'd go to hell if they didn't.

Some people are that way unfortunately. Its the reason that organized religion came about, as a method to control the populace.

---

100% negative.

there was a time in history when it served a benefit and had some positive values, we have as a species, society and culture (as a whole) moved beyond that a long time ago.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Positive. I'm always baffled by the people who think religious people would do terrible things if it wasn't for them believing they'd go to hell if they didn't.

Have you watched many debates between theists and atheists? Theists constantly bring this up: "why not just go around killing and raping people??" So it's like, why do you guys keep saying that? Is it something you would do?

---

kind9 posted...

I don't really see any positives at all. I guess it helps some people get through hard times, but is it the only answer? I doubt it.

That's not a reason to be sure a god-like being does exist though. But I'd say it's definitely more reasonable to believe in some deistic creator god than any made up fake god of religion.

I definitely believe there is a God out there somewhere but I also believe that its not something any religion thinks of as God

---

Wholly negative

---

kind9 posted...

Have you watched many debates between theists and atheists? Theists constantly bring this up: "why not just go around killing and raping people??" So it's like, why do you guys keep saying that? Is it something you would do?

Because it's a question to the underlying moral framework of an atheist. If you don't believe in an objective right and wrong, good and evil, why NOT do anything that results in pleasure, self-satisfaction, and self-gain? The whole idea is that things like killing, raping, and whatnot are considered evil and wrong which is specifically why we avoid them. An atheist frequently counters that, if they need the fear of hell to avoid doing these things, they aren't good people anyways. That ignores the very fact that, in their own argument, they apply the term 'good' as being an objective thing in regards to rape and murder as well as assert that people who engage in such things are, effectively, morally wrong. However in an atheistic viewpoint a term like 'good' and 'evil' and even 'moral' cannot apply. We view human sacrifice as being wrong yet the Aztecs engaged in it and saw no problem with it. We see slavery as morally wrong yet many civilizations throughout history saw it as morally acceptable. Who is to say that such a thing can be objectively classified as 'wrong' and that said civilizations were wrong if we cannot objectively classify things as being morally right or wrong? It's all subjective. At BEST you can claim that such things are considered wrong by modern society and modern understandings but this ignores that said society and understanding (especially western society and understanding) is heavily based upon Christian understandings and morality.

So theists constantly bring it up because an atheist has no actual counter to it because their only reasons for such actions being unacceptable are either subjective (and thusly not applicable to other cultures), based on a cultural viewpoint heavily influenced by religion, or containing a belief that morality is something beyond what can be controlled by humans which would put it in the realm of the divine or at least religious.

In short refuting it means accepting that there is an objective right and wrong above human influence which is inherently against an atheistic position.

---

Why do you think atheists don't believe in right and wrong? You don't need to be religious to be a moral person as decided by society.

---

Christians: Im nice to people because if Im not, Ill be punished for eternity!

athiests: Im nice to people because I hate how it personally makes me feel (when people are shitty to me) and I would never want to make another person feel that way.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Because it's a question to the underlying moral framework of an atheist. If you don't believe in an objective right and wrong, good and evil, why NOT do anything that results in pleasure, self-satisfaction, and self-gain? The whole idea is that things like killing, raping, and whatnot are considered evil and wrong which is specifically why we avoid them. An atheist frequently counters that, if they need the fear of hell to avoid doing these things, they aren't good people anyways. That ignores the very fact that, in their own argument, they apply the term 'good' as being an objective thing in regards to rape and murder as well as assert that people who engage in such things are, effectively, morally wrong. However in an atheistic viewpoint a term like 'good' and 'evil' and even 'moral' cannot apply. We view human sacrifice as being wrong yet the Aztecs engaged in it and saw no problem with it. We see slavery as morally wrong yet many civilizations throughout history saw it as morally acceptable. Who is to say that such a thing can be objectively classified as 'wrong' and that said civilizations were wrong if we cannot objectively classify things as being morally right or wrong? It's all subjective. At BEST you can claim that such things are considered wrong by modern society and modern understandings but this ignores that said society and understanding (especially western society and understanding) is heavily based upon Christian understandings and morality.

So theists constantly bring it up because an atheist has no actual counter to it because their only reasons for such actions being unacceptable are either subjective (and thusly not applicable to other cultures), based on a cultural viewpoint heavily influenced by religion, or containing a belief that morality is something beyond what can be controlled by humans which would put it in the realm of the divine or at least religious.

In short refuting it means accepting that there is an objective right and wrong above human influence which is inherently against an atheistic position.

I'm not even an atheist and I know morals don't come from a higher power, they were made by people (usually in conjunction with their religion) because it helped keep the species alive. You can't form society without some rules, and well before society came along we still lived in groups, which requires some level of trust to others in the group. Its in the best interest of the group that murder and theft and other such things aren't allowed, religion brings in more variables like ritualistic sacrifice which, while it looks like murder, usually isn't seen that way by the people that do it.

Religion usually pops up for a few reasons, and it's related to morals but not the cause. Hell you can see fucked up morals in most religions because they were started at a time where fucked up stuff (by our advanced understanding) was prevalent in different ways across the world, but they also have good stories on the things they got right.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

If you don't believe in an objective right and wrong, good and evil, why NOT do anything that results in pleasure, self-satisfaction, and self-gain?

The concept of right and wrong is in no way exclusive to religion and theology.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Why do you think atheists don't believe in right and wrong? You don't need to be religious to be a moral person as decided by society.

I'd like him to explain how it is humans existed for so long before religion as we know it was formed. Sure you had pagans and stuff but using his logic we should have self destructed long before anything like the Bible. Humans are supposed to be logical creatures and thats what separates us from regular animals. So at some point our ability to use reason would have (mostly) overridden our savagery and it would have become quite apparent that going around murdering/raping/pillaging etc everything in sight was not a recipe for success. We used our cooperative skills to form tribes/nations and the larger they became the more was at stake. Even if you still had wars between rivals, certain behaviour was largely rooted out from inside by laws whether written or not. Because nobody wants their tribe/nation/society they spent time and much effort building up to collapse.

The point is the "moral" codes that we know formed based on observations. Things like religion were then used later to reinforce these ideas along with trying to understand the world/universe at large. As we gained more knowledge about the universe, and continually do, there is less need for that supernatural side of it. And the civic side was/is taught already. There is no reason to be studying religion unless you want to be a scholar in that field. Take a civics class instead.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

The point is the "moral" codes that we know formed based on observations.

Right? Each culture sets their morals and what is acceptable. It existed before religion and it'll exist after. This isn't the first time I've seen a religious person center the moral universe on a religion.

---

Positive. I am currently attending a Christian college for my graduate degree. I'm not religious myself, but there are some good religious speakers and books I've heard and read while I've been at this school. Plus one of my closest friends is Christian and he is one of the nicest guys I know. Their religion seems to benefit their outlook on life.

Unbridled9 posted...

So theists constantly bring it up because an atheist has no actual counter to it because

Atheists usually counter with, "because I don't want to." Subjective morality doesn't mean you lack morality. I tend to believe that morality is mostly cultural and based on upbringing. Some philosophers believe in objective morality, but I find philosophy to be boring as shit.

---

I don't not murder people because it's illegal. I don't murder people because I don't want to murder people.

---

Eh, dont really care that much. I do however just care more towards living the life the best that I can. And I can certainly say that when it comes to religion though? It can be very dangerous... I mean just look at how fucked up Chris Stuckman's was when he grew up in a household that had a hard on for JW. It really sucks when you push that shit on your child, and then your child might grow up hating you, becoming so damn confused and so on. When you get religion shoved down your throat, yeah... thats the part that becomes dangerous. It can also break views in the family. My own boyfriend is gay, and his parents were hardcore Christians and you can see where this is going. His own parents..his own fucking parents choose religion over their own sons happiness... I mean, I get it. But never shove your religion down anyone else's throat just to make them believe in what you believes in.

I think we all should have a right to whatever the fuck we want to believe in though.

religion has the capability to do both great and terrible things. it's all about how you use it

it's also important to remember that christianity isn't the only religion. i see a lot of people criticize "religion" when they're only talking about christians, even in this topic. my background is jewish, and judaism actively encourages thinking for yourself and not taking things at face value and DIScourages proselytizing of any kind

---

Muscles posted...

I'm not even an atheist and I know morals don't come from a higher power, they were made by people (usually in conjunction with their religion) because it helped keep the species alive. You can't form society without some rules, and well before society came along we still lived in groups, which requires some level of trust to others in the group. Its in the best interest of the group that murder and theft and other such things aren't allowed, religion brings in more variables like ritualistic sacrifice which, while it looks like murder, usually isn't seen that way by the people that do it.

Religion usually pops up for a few reasons, and it's related to morals but not the cause. Hell you can see fucked up morals in most religions because they were started at a time where fucked up stuff (by our advanced understanding) was prevalent in different ways across the world, but they also have good stories on the things they got right.

Well see, here's the thing. You say they were formed by people to help keep people alive. All it would take then is those same people claiming that a woman does not have the right to say no to not only make rape no longer morally wrong, or even morally right, but to make it IMMORAL for a woman to resist. After all, pregnant women lead to higher birthrates which helps a societies population. You can justify murder by claiming that those murdered were a detriment to society and holding society back through their drain on the system. Theft can be justified as the reclamation of goods for the betterment of society or that it's stealing from the wealthy and entitled to help the poor and needy (regardless of any actualities of the situation). You could even justify stealing from the poor to give to the rich because the poor person is a 'detriment to society' while the wealthy is a 'positive boon who helps society'. So no. You are wrong because doing this sort of thing results in those in control of society dictating what is and isn't right and tyrannical rule. We see this throughout history. When a person in charge gets to dictate what is or is not right or wrong, be it religious (like the popes in the Crusades) or atheistic (like Stalin and Mao), the result is a net detriment to society in favor of the elite.

MeteoricBurst posted...

I'd like him to explain how it is humans existed for so long before religion as we know it was formed. Sure you had pagans and stuff but using his logic we should have self destructed long before anything like the Bible. Humans are supposed to be logical creatures and thats what separates us from regular animals. So at some point our ability to use reason would have (mostly) overridden our savagery and it would have become quite apparent that going around murdering/raping/pillaging etc everything in sight was not a recipe for success. We used our cooperative skills to form tribes/nations and the larger they became the more was at stake. Even if you still had wars between rivals, certain behaviour was largely rooted out from inside by laws whether written or not. Because nobody wants their tribe/nation/society they spent time and much effort building up to collapse.

The point is the "moral" codes that we know formed based on observations. Things like religion were then used later to reinforce these ideas along with trying to understand the world/universe at large. As we gained more knowledge about the universe, and continually do, there is less need for that supernatural side of it. And the civic side was/is taught already. There is no reason to be studying religion unless you want to be a scholar in that field. Take a civics class instead.

Well, let's assume for a moment that there is no such thing as a God, moral objectivity, or anything of the sort. I.E. the Atheists are right. We know tribal groups existed with their own common beliefs and ideals but it's very easy for a small group of people to work together without any need for any laws of any sort. The thing is that's only a small group. When you scale it up problems emerge. The oldest civilization we know of (to my knowledge) is the Indus Valley people but, from what I know of them, we barely know anything about them. Egypt is the first society we know of that succeeded on a large scale to my knowledge and it held it's own organized religion from the get-go (as best I know of). Notably said religion also held major differences in what is and is not acceptable as well. However it provided a shared culture, identity, and social structure for all people under Egypt's influence.

Jen0125 posted...

Right? Each culture sets their morals and what is acceptable. It existed before religion and it'll exist after. This isn't the first time I've seen a religious person center the moral universe on a religion.

So then what's to stop a society from saying that a woman has no rights and is immoral if she refuses? That a man can't have as many women he wants as concubines? That theft is wrong? The incest is wrong? That murder is wrong? We've seen cultures and religions which have advocated for such things being morally correct in the past. How can we claim that they were wrong and we were right unless an objective truth can be held about what is and is not right that is beyond the control of man? Do we assume that might makes right? Is the only reason Hitler was wrong about the jews because he lost WWII instead of an objective notion that all life, including human life, holds inherent value and it's wrong to kill someone simply for their race/religion? Are people like Stalin and Kim Jong Un correct in imprisoning people who do not conform 100% to their societal ideals simply because they define what is and is not morally acceptable? Anything can be justified with the claim that it's for the betterment of society, even things like cannibalism (feeding those in need) and, well, anything really.

---