Why do people always think God = religion?

In regards to why people associate religion with god is because we all have preconcieved notions about it. We make assumptions after hearing things like when you mention "God" or the "Holy spirit". We automatically assume you subscribe to a monotheistic faith. Because our minds want order over chaos we think it means you would belong to a pre-defined religion. In this case most-likely Catholocism or Christianity based upon the verbage you used. It's just a natural leap tha our brains make because it's preferable for it to categorize.

The reason why people hate religion, it has recieved the blame for the hate which those that follow under its banner show towards others. The intolerance shwon by many has become unseperable in many minds so it automatically has a stigma attatched to it by those who dont follow under it.

Also, to say "sincere" christians are ones who cherry-pick only the good from the bible and follow those tennets is imo incorrect. To divorce a faith from the radical is a showance of the No true Scotsman fallacy. It's the same as these Muslims who claim Islam is a religion of peace when in fact there is plenty in the Qu'Ran that shows the opposite of wha those claim. Same with Chrisitanity, and catholocism, and basically all religions that adhere to a large doctrine. They all have points held within that are contradictory to a statement of peace and prosperity for all.

This is not to say that they are inherently negative, or that the cherry picking can't be used in a good way. But the claim that they aren't "true/sincere christians" if they dont behave in the way that you percieve to be the correct way as described by the holy book then that is a fallacy.

I do however very much agree with the sentiment of freedom of religion, and I even beleive that in conjunction with the right to free speech they can preach their beliefs in a public domain without impedement as long as they arent harrassing anyone. This is why I am fine with the preachers on the corners of schools and such. It's also why I get pissed off when I see people harrassing them for professing their beliefs.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Thanks for all the replies guys. I was half expecting to be called a troll for even posting this, but this is a nice turnout.

I've read all the posts in this thread and it's really nice to see the different perspectives.

Also, I have a question regarding that;

Obviously every one has the freedom to choose their own faith and have their own views, but if there is a truth to be learned, shouldn't people be more concerned about that rather than going with what they understand or are comfortable with?

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Why single out Muslims for weekly hypocrisy? Forgive me Father, for I have sinned...

Huh? Did I say something wrong?

"

TheVibeOfDeath wrote:

Obviously every one has the freedom to choose their own faith and have their own views, but if there is a truth to be learned, shouldn't people be more concerned about that rather than going with what they understand or are comfortable with?

A thing that I've learned is that you can't truly learn the truth. Not if you are serious. The only thing you can know for sure is if something is false. Also, it's a thorny path, not for everyone (for example, I can't really give an objective statement about climate change, it's outside my capability; I just trust the folks at NASA, they are fairly smart).

That's a pretty big if. one that there can be no concrete answer for until the situation arises. The day it does will be a interesting day..

I personally don't see it as that big a deal to me, but for humanity as a whole it will be a huge deal and could very well incite some hostile action.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

What I said is quite simple.

By "sincere" I mean living up to the tenets to which they claim adherence. For a Christian, that means following the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), and not using that faith as an excuse to hate others for any reason. I'm not gonna get into the tenets of other faiths, as I don't believe it is germane to my point in this context.

Anyone else who claims to be a Christian, yet does not behave as commanded to by the Bible, has other, dishonest motives for making that claim. They may have been raised to live contrary to those tenets (cf the Westboro Baptist Church), but their "faith" is in their sense of superiority to others, and not in service to God.

Snarky internet atheists are the flip side of SJWs. They feel ennobled by their stance, but only at the expense of others for whom they can express contempt.

So long as your faith/beliefs/philosophy in no way harms another, nor promotes harm or hatred, you should be left in peace to practice it. I strongly believe in the individual's right to freedom of worship under those terms. Proselytize, if you like, but also accept rejection of your beliefs. You can always pray for the other fellow afterward, if you like. It shouldn't bother him, and it should make you feel better. =^[.]^=

I get where you're coming from Ray, but you're using an interpretation of the Golden Rule to make value judgements about the sincerity and validity of a persons beliefs, then arbitrarily assigning them as "acceptable" and "not acceptable" based on that.

The golden rule as represented in the Abrahamic religions doesn't exclude hatred and prejudice, although it does mean it takes a little bit of mental gymnastics to fit it cleanly into some of the actions they undertake in service of God. The thing is, for a lot of people those mental gymnastics are already done for them - they are indoctrinated into a particular set of values because of their upbringing, or culture, or peer group.

I just don't think it's valid to write people off in this manner, because essentially you're writing people off for having a different set of beliefs than you - which is the very behaviour you're decrying.

I'm not smart enough to really argue this kind of stuff - so please excuse me if I am not explaining my feelings properly.

Just a clarification, I'm not religious, nor am I an atheist or agnostic. I'm more of an apatheist.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

Why single out Muslims for weekly hypocrisy? Forgive me Father, for I have sinned...

I did it because I literally don't know any Christians. I can imagine they are as hypocritical though.

"

nait2k4 wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

What I said is quite simple.

By "sincere" I mean living up to the tenets to which they claim adherence. For a Christian, that means following the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), and not using that faith as an excuse to hate others for any reason. I'm not gonna get into the tenets of other faiths, as I don't believe it is germane to my point in this context.

Anyone else who claims to be a Christian, yet does not behave as commanded to by the Bible, has other, dishonest motives for making that claim. They may have been raised to live contrary to those tenets (cf the Westboro Baptist Church), but their "faith" is in their sense of superiority to others, and not in service to God.

Snarky internet atheists are the flip side of SJWs. They feel ennobled by their stance, but only at the expense of others for whom they can express contempt.

So long as your faith/beliefs/philosophy in no way harms another, nor promotes harm or hatred, you should be left in peace to practice it. I strongly believe in the individual's right to freedom of worship under those terms. Proselytize, if you like, but also accept rejection of your beliefs. You can always pray for the other fellow afterward, if you like. It shouldn't bother him, and it should make you feel better. =^[.]^=

I get where you're coming from Ray, but you're using an interpretation of the Golden Rule to make value judgements about the sincerity and validity of a persons beliefs, then arbitrarily assigning them as "acceptable" and "not acceptable" based on that.

The golden rule as represented in the Abrahamic religions doesn't exclude hatred and prejudice, although it does mean it takes a little bit of mental gymnastics to fit it cleanly into some of the actions they undertake in service of God. The thing is, for a lot of people those mental gymnastics are already done for them - they are indoctrinated into a particular set of values because of their upbringing, or culture, or peer group.

I just don't think it's valid to write people off in this manner, because essentially you're writing people off for having a different set of beliefs than you - which is the very behaviour you're decrying.

I'm not smart enough to really argue this kind of stuff - so please excuse me if I am not explaining my feelings properly.

Just a clarification, I'm not religious, nor am I an atheist or agnostic. I'm more of an apatheist.

Perhaps I should clarify: Modern Christians (well, relative to the Old Testament/New testament dichotomy, they're all "modern") have a very simple set of rules to follow: The Ten (original) Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus (which technically subsume and supersede the 10C). All the OT fire and brimstone and "slaughter the enemy tribes to the last child" stuff, including stoning of homosexuals and all the rest (mixing types of fabric in garments, yadda-yadda) went out with Christ's new covenant. Whether or not a given church or sect accepts this interpretation ("cherry picking") or holds that the whole book is absolute doctrine (I can't imagine many congregations which still do), the fact remains that, in the purest sense, being a "sincere" Christian means a love of God and of one's fellow man.

Are there flawed Christians? Of course. The Bible isn't a handbook for perfection. Many are hypocrites or even absolute sinners, but, in order to be so, they cannot with a straight face declare their faith in and love of God and still behave as they do, hence, "insincere."

I will refrain from commenting in depth on Islam, except to say that, as the Qu'ran is written, it does not meet the criterion I posited for an inoffensive, peaceable faith. It is a doctrine of conquest and domination, and I am unaware of any "New Testament" in the Qu'ran which cancels the primary tenets of ethnic and religious hatred and genocide which still characterize the most prevalent expression of the faith today.

'Nuff said. ='[.]'=

I thought the Hadiths were the fucked up part.

But you are probably right.

That being said, the whole analysis applies to jews too, yet they are mostly peaceful.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Perhaps I should clarify: Modern Christians (well, relative to the Old Testament/New testament dichotomy, they're all "modern") have a very simple set of rules to follow: The Ten (original) Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus (which technically subsume and supersede the 10C). All the OT fire and brimstone and "slaughter the enemy tribes to the last child" stuff, including stoning of homosexuals and all the rest (mixing types of fabric in garments, yadda-yadda) went out with Christ's new covenant. Whether or not a given church or sect accepts this interpretation ("cherry picking") or holds that the whole book is absolute doctrine (I can't imagine many congregations which still do), the fact remains that, in the purest sense, being a "sincere" Christian means a love of God and of one's fellow man.

Are there flawed Christians? Of course. The Bible isn't a handbook for perfection. Many are hypocrites or even absolute sinners, but, in order to be so, they cannot with a straight face declare their faith in and love of God and still behave as they do, hence, "insincere."

I will refrain from commenting in depth on Islam, except to say that, as the Qu'ran is written, it does not meet the criterion I posited for an inoffensive, peaceable faith. It is a doctrine of conquest and domination, and I am unaware of any "New Testament" in the Qu'ran which cancels the primary tenets of ethnic and religious hatred and genocide which still characterize the most prevalent expression of the faith today.

'Nuff said. ='[.]'=

I'll defer to your wider academic knowledge and experience, but I'll reserve a little concern that the broad strokes may be slightly unfair in some circumstances.