Why do some professionals in the sciences reject religion?

[BigMike]

So whether Christians act like Christ or not is kind of beside the point.

Not to me. I don't really care all that much if someone wants to believe in walking on water or blue gods with 8 arms or unicorns, but if that belief comes with cruelty baked in, fuck that.

Although our reasons for dismissing that religious nonsense may vary—yours rooted in its implied cruelty, mine grounded in its sheer falseness—we at least arrive at the same conclusion: it doesn’t belong in any serious search for truth or moral guidance. Whether it’s harmful or just flat-out untrue, a belief system built on fiction shouldn’t be steering humanity’s future.

[Alexiev]

So whether Christians act like Christ or not is kind of beside the point.

Not to me. I don't really care all that much if someone wants to believe in walking on water or blue gods with 8 arms or unicorns, but if that belief comes with cruelty baked in, fuck that.

Although our reasons for dismissing that religious nonsense may vary—yours rooted in its implied cruelty, mine grounded in its sheer falseness—we at least arrive at the same conclusion: it doesn’t belong in any serious search for truth or moral guidance. Whether it’s harmful or just flat-out untrue, a belief system built on fiction shouldn’t be steering humanity’s future.

Why? Perhaps fiction is very good at creating heroes people should try to emulate, or imaginary situations that exemplify moral dilemmas. Ethical belief systems cannot be "factual:, so why not shape them through dreams and desires. Serious discussions can include hypothetical (fictional) exemplars. Why shouldn't they?

Of course mythology is not "fiction", just as fiction is not "lies". Let's avoid conflating distinct literary genres. "Dismissing" one of humanity's creations on which humankind and some great geniuses have spent unmeasurable efforts appears ridiculous. We might as well "dismiss" fiction (horrible even to consider).

[BigMike]

Not to me. I don't really care all that much if someone wants to believe in walking on water or blue gods with 8 arms or unicorns, but if that belief comes with cruelty baked in, fuck that.

Although our reasons for dismissing that religious nonsense may vary—yours rooted in its implied cruelty, mine grounded in its sheer falseness—we at least arrive at the same conclusion: it doesn’t belong in any serious search for truth or moral guidance. Whether it’s harmful or just flat-out untrue, a belief system built on fiction shouldn’t be steering humanity’s future.

Why? Perhaps fiction is very good at creating heroes people should try to emulate, or imaginary situations that exemplify moral dilemmas. Ethical belief systems cannot be "factual:, so why not shape them through dreams and desires. Serious discussions can include hypothetical (fictional) exemplars. Why shouldn't they?

Of course mythology is not "fiction", just as fiction is not "lies". Let's avoid conflating distinct literary genres. "Dismissing" one of humanity's creations on which humankind and some great geniuses have spent unmeasurable efforts appears ridiculous. We might as well "dismiss" fiction (horrible even to consider).

Are you kidding me?!!

We’re talking about belief systems that billions of people take as literal truth—truth that informs how they vote, how they treat others, how they raise their kids, and how they justify wars. This isn’t about admiring a fictional hero or using parables to explore moral nuance. This is about people believing in invisible beings, immaterial souls, and supernatural punishments—and shaping real-world decisions around that.

Sure, fiction can be valuable. So can myth, as metaphor. But when people start treating myths as fact—and using them to make laws, restrict rights, or push dogma—that’s not “literary genre appreciation,” that’s a dangerous confusion between storytelling and reality. The problem isn’t that fiction exists. The problem is pretending it’s the truth.

[godelian]

Perhaps fiction is very good at creating heroes people should try to emulate, or imaginary situations that exemplify moral dilemmas.

Yes, but that is still no reason to worship the fake divinity of a man and his single mother, and insist that everybody else should do that too.

[Alexiev]

Are you kidding me?!!

We’re talking about belief systems that billions of people take as literal truth—truth that informs how they vote, how they treat others, how they raise their kids, and how they justify wars. This isn’t about admiring a fictional hero or using parables to explore moral nuance. This is about people believing in invisible beings, immaterial souls, and supernatural punishments—and shaping real-world decisions around that.

Sure, fiction can be valuable. So can myth, as metaphor. But when people start treating myths as fact—and using them to make laws, restrict rights, or push dogma—that’s not “literary genre appreciation,” that’s a dangerous confusion between storytelling and reality. The problem isn’t that fiction exists. The problem is pretending it’s the truth.

What should we base our ethical codes on? Isn't it possible that traditional wisdom -- Thou shall not kill; do unto others, etc.-- is a good place to start? Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

It's even possible that religious belief -- "untrue" though it may be-- conduces human well being. Perhaps there are evolutionary benefits to religion that help.individuals and society. Isn't it likely that religion has social snd psychological functions that have value? Isn't that just as likely to promote human well being as determinism is-'regardless of which is "factual"?

At universities the Humanities study human cultural achievements: economics, literature. art, languages, music, and, yes, religion. To dismiss religion as unworthy of study and deleterious in its influence is anti-intellectual. It has been one of the key facets of human culture. Morality, music, art, literature and social relations might have been "determined" (if they were determined) very differently without its influence.

[Alexiev]

Yes, but that is still no reason to worship the fake divinity of a man and his single mother, and insist that everybody else should do that too.

What do you have against "single mothers"?

[godelian]

Yes, but that is still no reason to worship the fake divinity of a man and his single mother, and insist that everybody else should do that too.

What do you have against "single mothers"?

Nothing. I just don't agree to worship their fake divinity.

[attofishpi]

Yes, but that is still no reason to worship the fake divinity of a man and his single mother, and insist that everybody else should do that too.

What do you have against "single mothers"?

Nothing. I just don't agree to worship their fake divinity.

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

[Age]

What do you have against "single mothers"?

Nothing. I just don't agree to worship their fake divinity.

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

Why do some people who claim be 'one' of a religion reject, wholeheartedly, what the exact same religion says, claims, and professes to?

The answer is the exact same for why some so-called "professionals' in any thing reject 'religion', itself. 'Religion', itself, can be the worst form of living, and the cause of the Wrong in the world.

But, 'I' shall continue to allow 'you' "believers" believe absolutely any thing you so choose to. See, it is only you human beings who want to 'stop believing' and who seriously want to change, for the better, who are 'the ones' doing what is Right, in Life.

[godelian]

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

I wasn't born into Islam. So, I do not have an emotional attachment to it. The same holds true for Judaism. I just read about these doctrines on the internet.

So, in a sense, I don't give a flying fart what people say about these doctrines.

The only kind of remarks I am potentially sensitive to, would be the claim that they are not deductively closed. You see, lack of deductive closure would be massively damaging to their credibility. It would mean that they are just the same kind of bullshit as Christianity.

I do not believe that this could ever be the case. You really need a centralized monopoly on "authentic" interpretation, i.e. a Church, to create a bullshit religion.

So, every religion tends to be a legitimate theory in logic unless it has a church to actively prevent that.

All other religions are fine. Seriously, all of them. It is only Christianity that is a steaming pile of shit.

[godelian]

Nothing. I just don't agree to worship their fake divinity.

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

Why do some people who claim be 'one' of a religion reject, wholeheartedly, what the exact same religion says, claims, and professes to?

The answer is the exact same for why some so-called "professionals' in any thing reject 'religion', itself. 'Religion', itself, can be the worst form of living, and the cause of the Wrong in the world.

But, 'I' shall continue to allow 'you' "believers" believe absolutely any thing you so choose to. See, it is only you human beings who want to 'stop believing' and who seriously want to change, for the better, who are 'the ones' doing what is Right, in Life.

If you subscribe to the necessity of logic, which is something that most academic fields demand, then you must resolutely reject and utterly condemn Christianity.

Repeat after me:

Christianity and logic are like water and fire.

[attofishpi]

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

I wasn't born into Islam. So, I do not have an emotional attachment to it. The same holds true for Judaism. I just read about these doctrines on the internet.

If you were born into "Christianity" - then GOD had you born into that religion for a reason - based upon your previous life. The fact that you have rejected where\what GOD had you born into, is something you should consider.

So, in a sense, I don't give a flying fart what people say about these doctrines.

To the contrary, you are of late continually attempting to justify your rejection of Jesus the Christ.

The only kind of remarks I am potentially sensitive to, would be the claim that they are not deductively closed. You see, lack of deductive closure would be massively damaging to their credibility. It would mean that they are just the same kind of bullshit as Christianity.

No Divine being requires worship, submission and killing, in particular, of those that leave their religion - apostasy. That is ridiculous nonsense from your warlord Mohammed.

I do not believe that this could ever be the case. You really need a centralized monopoly on "authentic" interpretation, i.e. a Church, to create a bullshit religion.

Islam prime example. I do not care for men and their interpretations and their bigotry imposed via their forms of religion. I believe in the Commandments and what Jesus the Christ suffered through in insistence of LOVE & TRUST in fellow wo/man.

So, every religion tends to be a legitimate theory in logic unless it has a church to actively prevent that.

Islam and Mosques are more guilty of that than ANY "religion".

All other religions are fine. Seriously, all of them. It is only Christianity that is a steaming pile of shit.

Were you born into a Christian family/upbringing or atheist or what?

[Age]

Allah?
--- Allah = Arabic for God
Allah in ANY English dictionary should translate to Satan.

Islam was formed in the year 666

Why do some people who claim be 'one' of a religion reject, wholeheartedly, what the exact same religion says, claims, and professes to?

The answer is the exact same for why some so-called "professionals' in any thing reject 'religion', itself. 'Religion', itself, can be the worst form of living, and the cause of the Wrong in the world.

But, 'I' shall continue to allow 'you' "believers" believe absolutely any thing you so choose to. See, it is only you human beings who want to 'stop believing' and who seriously want to change, for the better, who are 'the ones' doing what is Right, in Life.

If you subscribe to the necessity of logic, which is something that most academic fields demand, then you must resolutely reject and utterly condemn Christianity.

Repeat after me:

Christianity and logic are like water and fire.

Again, 'confirmation bias' is rife within this forum.

As, some one like "attofishpi" will insist;

if you subscribe to the 'necessity of logic', which is something that most academic fields demand, then you must resolutely reject and utterly condemn "islam".

Repeat after me:

"islam' and logic are like water and fire.

[godelian]

"islam' and logic are like water and fire.

You just wish!

Islam is defined as the deductive closure around its scriptures.

There is no Church in Islam to deviate from deductive closure by means of "authentic" interpretation by a Pope or a council. These things only exist in Christianity!

I have never said that you should believe in Islam. Other religions are fine too, as long as they don't have a church actively damaging consistency and deductive closure of their doctrine.

It is absolutely not difficult to achieve that. Just don't have a church, and then consistency and deductive closure will naturally emerge. The religion will then automatically be compatible with mathematics, science, and engineering.

[godelian]

To the contrary, you are of late continually attempting to justify your rejection of Jesus the Christ.

I do not reject Christ's ministry. I merely reject his fake divinity, as well as the fake divinity of his single mother.