Why religion is fundamentally and basically immoral and evil, and should be banned.

Like no other existing human enterprise, religion will one day lead its insane followers to start a nuclear war that will destroy us all over some insult to it or its deity or to the breaking of one of its commandments.
There is no comparable threat to our very existence from any other form of human activity.

Views: 297

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Who is going to do the banning? How will they do it?
You certainly have a valid point with regard to obnoxious and nasty kids and even serial killers. Nuclear war is an event that we cannot survive and I think justifies banning activities that have a good chance of producing it. It's totally unlike anything else in human history. We're are trying to ban proliferation of atomic weapons before and not after the fact for the same reason. In my opinion the many suicidal bombings of religionists and the complete absence of the same of atheists are good evidence that religion breeds a sort of self destructive fanaticism that could lead to global destruction. To wait until they do it before enforcing a ban, I think you would agree, would not be an option.
So history's not your strong point either. Do you have any strong points? Other than spooky stuff. Anything real? I mean, I'd respond to the complete pig ignorance of your comment, but what's the point ? Pick up a grade school history book sometime. Maybe it's not too late.
we told them they had to halt military production so they could not defend themselves

So in other words, we tried to ban Germany from doing something, and in reaction they ended up even more megalomaniacal?

And you want to ban religion?
Ban the weapons, then. A ban on things that go on in the mind is at the basic level unenforceable. Other ideologies besides religion also lead people to the same results. Wars are not just about religion, they're also about economics, style of government, territory. (Although I do think religion, being that there is never any type of proof, has more potential for fanaticism, I don't think that fanaticism is the only thing that comes of it.) There have been nuclear wars already, which weren't centrally related to religion, and the bomb was dropped by none other than America. We can keep in mind things that have happened in history, but we really can't predict the future.

As for banning activities that have a good chance of creating nuclear war, that could just as easily mean banning science/technology, because they give people the means in which to discover and invent new things, including more devastating forms of warfare.
I'm not saying that religion is the only thing that could lead to nuclear war, just the most likely at present. Most of the other factors you mentioned tend to be limited by relatively rational people realizing the consequences of nuclear war. The religious fanatics can assume the afterlife, rewards of martyrdom, eternal punishment of sinners in hell and so on which tend to minimize or deny the actual realities of nuclear war. These delusions I think make religion the most dangerous activity.

As for banning science, of course science led to nuclear weapons but science unlike religion is a self-correcting process and has done much to limit the spread of these weapons. One way it has is by educating the public about the consequences of nuclear war and the nuclear winter that would follow. I think that did much to prevent the further use of nuclear weapons in the 20th century.
Science is self-correcting, but it isn't formed in a vacuum, and it reflects on the attitudes of the time periods (for instance, earlier scientists thought animals didn't matter and didn't have feelings and that women were too emotional to do science objectively) and is influenced by the politics of the time. Scientific discoveries will be used for good and for evil, by governments and religions. Religious fanatics usually don't care about science and would probably be beating each other with clubs, but when there are scientific discoveries, they take advantage when it benefits them. Science would still be what enables a religious person, a racial supremacist, a nationalist, or a political ideology to commit the atrocities. It also depends if the religion, or other group that wants to commit atrocities, has the money to develop/buy the weapons.

I just don't think life is so simple that one thing is the cause of all problems. If religious fanaticism is most likely to cause problems, then put a curb to religious fanaticism when it becomes a problem (there's going to be some foreshadowing before it gets to nuclear bomb). For example, don't allow Sharia law, veils of secrecy that keep corruption going, tax exempt status that gives certain religions a political advantage.

But banning all religion? This is like taking someone who drinks a beer at home once a week and lumping him/her in with alcoholics who get in drunken car accidents. Basically, it's saying some people abuse alcohol and there are terrible consequences, therefore let's ban all alcohol. Prohibitionists thought this way apparently, but prohibition didn't solve anything.
The argument is made that to stop nuclear war why don't we ban science since it produced them

my response: yes, it would certainly stop the development of newer weapons but

1) it would not prevent religionists from using already made weapons of which there are huge numbers that can already destroy the planet, and one can argue that it might hasten the use by extremists.

2) science is a self correcting process and has contributed greatly to the control and banning of nuclear weapons and to educating the public on the consequences of nuclear war

3) banning science would totally undermine our present day society and civilization since much of it is dependent on scientific research, discovery and development. This is not true for religion since there are many people living entirely without religion and doing fine.
Governments, religions and regimes will co-opt science for their own agendas. For example gas chambers were made to exterminate large numbers of people as efficiently and cheaply as possible. They would not have been possible without scientific knowledge.

Science may be self-correcting and scientists may do their best to be free of bias, etc, but it is impossible to be without some bias, and not everyone who uses science will be using critical thinking. It does not correct itself automatically.

I don't really want to ban science, (and I hope no one thinks that!) but I'm pointing out that it is an oversimplification to think that all our problems will be solved by removing one isolated factor.
Eric: In my opinion the many suicidal bombings of religionists and the complete absence of the same of atheists

Such statements, while emotionally satisfying, are inherently false and if you use them for your argument you will play into the hands of experienced theist apologists. See the Sri Lankan civil war. You do us a disservice by using them.
plus it's not really a valid comparison...
an atheist suicide bomber is primarily a psychopath, not primarily an atheist; of course one could make a similar point about religious fundamentalist suicide bombers, but at least they have the excuse of an appropriately insane 'moral' foundation...
And I would say a theist suicide bomber is also primarily a psychopath. In the clinical sense.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service