How do you make the logical leap from: a) religious people do bad things, to: b) religion is therefore bad?

Question

Religious "people", institutions, etc. You get my point.

I understand the importance of historical precedence, but I don't understand how one makes this particular leap of logic?

Toadaly: if it only provoked bad behavior, I would agree with you. But I think the real cases are a bit more ambiguous? If it provokes both good and bad behavior, then what do you say about the belief system?

no_good_name_left: very nice. I agree with you in a limited context, it works. But I do see people on here take the limited principle and apply it as a general truth.

Answer 1

I think over time, when people see people do horrible things in the name of religion time and time again, they probably naturally assume something must be wrong with religion. Obviously, not all religious people do bad things, thats just common sense. But thinking over a period of time, historically up until now..a lot of "religious" folks have done some pretty horrible things in the name of religion. Just look at our wonderful self proclaimed "Christian" president. While he shouldn't be the representative of the entire Christian population, he and others that people may come in contact with on a daily basis, just may give religion a bad name, thus turns people away.

Is it right? No. But same thing goes for people have a bad experience with a Black person then they conclude that all Black people are this or that. That's just how a lot of humans operate and rationalize.

Answer 2

Under normal situations, a "Religious person" who does bad thngs is not normally extrapolated by me to include the idea that the ENTIRE Religin is bad. However, IF the overwhelming majority of followers of that Religion act the smae way then it is simple logic to conclude that such behavior IS the nrom for that Religion and therefore logical to conclude that THAT particular Religion IS also bad to it's very core. Examples would include those sects of Christianity that practice marriage with YOUNG children, sanctioned and even encouraged by the LEADERS of those sects. This is something that I find 100% deplorable.

Brightest Blessings,
Raji the Green Witch

Answer 3

There isn't a logical leap from a to b there. The beef I take with religion has nothing to do with what some members do but with what the actual teachings of the church are. "You're a wretch and a sinner. You're lost without this guy, and, since we profess him, you're lost without us." This can drive people to fear of eternal torture and thus leave them vulnerable to being controlled by leaders. It can also inspire the self-hatred that causes depression, suicide, et cetera.
Honestly, if you go to church, how many people do you see who aren't caught up in being "right" and "holier than thou"? How many do you see who actually follow the base tenets of love for everyone, compassion, leaving the judging to the higher power...? My theory is that the people who feel the love do not really need the religion, and, rather than the morons bringing the love-people's establishment down, I think the spiritualists bring the moron establishment up, and would be better off split from it.
Does your truth come from an old guy in a tie taking 10% of your money or the words of the Christ which taught you to love?

Answer 4

Actually, logic has brought me happiness. It's nice to be able to see things for what they are rather than depending on unseen forces that may or may not exist. It gives me intellectual freedom, something many religious people will never have the chance to have because blind faith holds them back from experiencing things. Religion is not all bad, only when it is imposed on other people who do not share the common belief.

Answer 5

Religious people do good things too, but people who want to live a life of servitude could just as easily live it serving their fellow human beings. Just cut out the middle man and become symbiotes with those around you.

Religion just carries so much baggage, and this is where all the bad things you mention come from. We are highly evolved self aware beings capable of discussing this issue, so we are able to distinguish between the good and the bad and focus on the good. By rejecting the religious doctrine you can take it one step further and get rid of the bad too.

Modern humans having religion is like a healthy person using crutches. The crutches aren't "bad" for him, but they are unnecessary, and do slow him down.

Answer 6

The "bad" religious people support their stand with, for example, quotations from scripture that, according to them, condones or encourages what they are doing.

I agree, these people may be twisting the scripture to their own ends - but other people, conditioned to believe in what their religious leaders tell them, are taken along for the ride.

Thus the existence of religion provides an unquestioning support base for the "bad" people. I could therefore argue that religion as a concept is "bad".

I would certainly never claim that wars etc are caused only by religion, but I will say that an organisation which conditions its followers to believe what they are told is a potentially dangerous thing.

Answer 7

There is no logical leap. It's as much of a scapegoat as "the Jews killed Jesus". There's only a vague connection to the two points, at best.

I find it hilarious that Atheists, so insistent on their reverence of Logic & Reason are also so quick to scapegoating religion for all "the bad things" that happen in the world when 1) only among Christians and Muslims have one's religion been used as justification for doing ill amongst one's fellow man and 2) only a comparitive handful of said believers are actually guilty for doing the deed themselves -- most are either ambivalent to said deeds or outright *oppose* said deeds based on *their own* interpretation of Christian or Islamic mythos -- after all, one of the Judeo-Christian commandments is "Thou shalt not kill" and, within the context of when it was written, Mohammed's cry to "pick up one's sword" was a response to persecution against Islam at that time, and it's highly dubious to insist that this applies to those who are friendly or neutral to Islam, as the father of one of Mohammed's wives was a pagan who was friendly towards Islam, and he did not meet the wrath of the Muslims of that day.

Answer 8

I continually read questions and answers that make blanket statements that we, with belief, consider those without to be wicked or evil or just bad people. I don't know anyone who has a blanket belief like this and I have never heard this any place but on QA. Perhaps I live in a part of the country that does not. I am also not accused of being evil or ignorant because I am a Christian.

Edit: Christianity is used in a generic manor more often than what it truly is. Christianity is a state of being, and has nothing to do with Baptist, Evangelicals, Cathlic, Mormon.....each of these have Christians who define themselves as one or another of these, but for a Christian, it refers to the church they attend. I, personally, attend a non-denominational church, but have tried other 'Bible believing' churches. I have found notone mainstream Bible believing church as anything but advicators of 'good' with emphisis on one or more points that I, frankly, do not want to be perceived as believing. But I have not found one that was "bad" or harmful to themselves or others. The Bible give history and there is war and death and sex and unacceptable attitudes/behavior. Alway, it is war against those who wish to destroy God's chosen people and when one does something against God (contrary to God's comandments) there is a bad result either through God's punishment or the punishment that follows an act naturally, that is, with or without God personally afflicting the punishment. ALL area a lesson for us.
Islam, directs it's followers to commit physical harm, in hiddious ways. The Bible does not instruct us to harm anyone. If one believes in God, which would you be more likely to follow: the Quran or Bible? And Islam is only one fause belief among many.

To offer my 2 cents in reference to your question, religions of all kinds exist and some are meant to encourage or demand bad behavior. Other religions encourage or demand nothing but good behavior. Others, with no religious beliefs, may belong to non religious organizations that advocate either good or bad behavior.
Why the name calling and accusing? No one is going to change me, but me or God. No one is going to change anyone else but them self or God. Why don't we simply leave each other to take care of our own business. Have a debate without accusations and name calling. These debates sound like a bunch of politicians.

Those who want to make the leap you speak of, want to make that leap and label it Christians. They are mislead and not making well thought out personal observations and accusations. They need to ask themselves 'if no one had told me; if I had not read that book; if I held an open mind, would I feel this way? Most will claim to have come to the decission all on their own, and some actually have, but most have been lead to believe that attacking 'religion' will somehow make their lives better.

Answer 9

It is no different than any other leap of faith.

Religion offers a place for people to become complacent in their behaviour. They often put blinders on each other, so that people will not look within themselves, or seek answers outside of the "organized box".

Freedom of expression is often frowned upon and harmful behaviour is often ignored.

People do as they are conditioned to do, and religion often does not encourage spiritual growth.

Answer 10

True, true.
And why don't people apply that same mentality to its logical conclusion? If religious people doing bad things means that religion is bad, then religious people doing good things means that religion is good. Christians owned slaves in the South, but Christians freed those slaves. Christians consented to the concentration camps in Germany, but Christians liberated those camps and overthrew the Nazi regime. The only religion that has had consistently negative results in history are those who militantly opposed all religion - they murdered over 180,000,000 people over a few decades, and produced no lasting benefits to society whatsoever.