The worst religion invented by man

[Fia]

Latest post of the previous page:

Although i do appreciate your gallantry, Alan, what makes you think that us 'wimin' need, or even want, 'looking after' ?

[Alan C.]

Although i do appreciate your gallantry, Alan, what makes you think that us 'wimin' need, or even want, 'looking after' ?

Well historically it looks that way,
Women are treated as second class humans by all "religions", yet women still play a large part in said "religions"
Stockholm syndrome?

[Nirvanam]

Women are treated as second class humans by all "religions", yet women still play a large part in said "religions"
Stockholm syndrome?

I wouldn't agree with that Alan. From the religious texts of the different religions I have read about, I don't think that statement is true. Culturally, yes, almost all of humanity follows patriarchal society and in such societies women are obviously treated as being lesser than men. But do religious texts actually say that a woman is lesser than a man...from my readings only Abrahamic religions i.e. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism do that (in fact Islam does it explicitly whereas OT and NT are not as explicit as the Quran). I haven't seen that in either Buddhism, or Vedic religion, or Jainism. I am not sure about the other religions though.

[MedMae]

I would vote for all the Abrahamic religions. I consider them to be essentially one religion, they all share a common origin after all. Some parts are worse than others, but they are all prone to violent fundyism. After that I would have to say it's scientology, though whether you consider that a religious scam or just a pure scam is debatable.

[Maria Mac]

I think of scientology as a cult rather than as a religion. In some ways cults are worse than mainstream religions e.g in their use of brainwashing techniques such as starvation, love-bombing and time disorientation as a means of ensnaring adults whom they then try to isolate from their families and former lives. In some ways perhaps they are not as bad as mainstream religions though I can't think of any right now.

[Nirvanam]

Here's how I would rate these religions from worst upwards:
1. Islam
2. Christianity
3. Judaism
4. Baha'ism
5. Shintoism, Sikhism, Zorastrianism
6. Vedic religion
7. Jainism
8. Buddhism
My reasons are as follows. I don't know much about Shintoism, Zorastrianism, and Sikhism hence have put them in the middle: neither worser nor better than others.
If the same question was asked around a year ago I would've chosen Christianity to be the worst but now I choose Islam because of the research I did on that religion. It all started when I landed on a website (thru some forum I guess) that basically accused Muhammed of being a pedophile, a rapist, a terrorist, an NPD sufferer, etc. My first reaction was how could this be true, after all he is a prophet (invariably the word prophet conjures up images to me of people like gandhi, jesus, buddha, and the like). A couple of my best pals are Muslims and I couldn't accept the fact that they were following such a grossly degenerated mind, and hence thought I should take up the challenge but before I do I must do my research. For around 3 months I read many documents, followed websites related to Islam. Then I realized Muhammad is really what this guy accuses him of. The worst part was that there was no contradiction in what the Muslims say and what the non-Muslims say...just that the Muslims think it to be "right" whereas the others think it is wrong. Here's the site/challenge in case you are wondering... http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/

Number 2 had to be Christianity since no other religion has done as much harm to humanity as Christianity has. Number 3 is Judaism since it shares the same basic principles of all Abrahamic religions. Number 4 is Bahai'ism...I rate them better than the rest of the Abrahamic ones because they really made an effort to actually reform their views and make them more humanitarian.

The religions that are on the better (relatively) side in my rating is primarily because of the concept of their God. The Abrahamic ones concept of God is one who has to be feared whereas Vedic, Jainism, Buddhism religions' God is based more on love and tolerance. In fact I don't see the concept of hell, or damnation in these religions. I rate Vedic religion at 6 more because of the cultural practices it has allowed (albeit not as part of religious texts) thru the millenia like the caste system. Jainism is at 7 because I think they are "intolerant" to non-vegetarians...I mean you cannot be a Jain if you are a non-vegetarian. I find Buddhism the best (relatively) among all religions because a. no violence at all (not even for self-defence), b. no concept of an Almighty God.

In a larger context it is interesting to study how man invented these religions and the motives behind them. You can see a definite philosophical divide between the eastern faiths and the western faiths

[MedMae]

I do not think there is really a significant difference between a religion and a cult. It's also quite possbile that scientology has more members than some of the religions in the poll, Zoroastrianism for example may have as few as 124,000 adherents remaining. (Source).

[Alan C.]

As I've said here (more than once) and on other forums, all "religions" are cults if you look at the dictionary definition.

a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
the object of such devotion.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

[getreal]

Alan, can you tell me the source of that definition?

[Alan C.]

Alan, can you tell me the source of that definition?

Certainly getreal, it's from Dictionary.com quicker than going through the bookshelves looking for my hard copy.

Edit.

Damn! You made me go and look out my English dictionary, which says.
Cult.
A system of worship: devoted to attatchment to a person, principle, etc.

Yep! That looks like religion to me.

[getreal]

Thanks for that.

I've just checked a couple of (paper based) dictionaries and they define "cult" in the same way, which is interesting (to me anyway) as I have always thought there was a difference between "cult" and "religion".

Clearly not; and makes me feel rather uneasy (or is that the lack of sleep?)

[Alan C.]

getreal
Clearly not; and makes me feel rather uneasy (or is that the lack of sleep?)

Probably your visitors and your age

[Alan H]

Another definition (IIRC):

When a few people believe in something ridiculous, it's called a cult: when a lot of people believe in something ridiculous, it's called a religion.

(Polly Toynbee)

[Fia]

Good on Polly

[getreal]

[Maria Mac]

Another definition (IIRC):

When a few people believe in something ridiculous, it's called a cult: when a lot of people believe in something ridiculous, it's called a religion.

(Polly Toynbee)

I don't agree. The difference between cults (as we use the word today) and religions isn't to do with size, it's to do with practice. [/pedantry]

[Gottard]

Not being in a position to rationally decide which the worst religion could be I wonder if they can all be categorized by their wealth - in the thinking that the wealthier should also be most selfish and contradictory in their teaching. I voted the Muslim anyway for their fundamentalism.

By the way, I wonder if BinLaden will be to the Talebans what Jesus Christ has been to the Christians?!

[Maria Mac]

When I added my last post to this thread, I hadn't noticed Alan C's post disputing that cults and religions are different so I'll address it now.

As I've said here (more than once) and on other forums, all "religions" are cults if you look at the dictionary definition.

a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
the object of such devotion.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

The dictionary definition is correct as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. All it does is mention those features that cults have in common with religions. What it doesn't do is mention the differences between them and it is these differences that define cults on the one hand and religions on the other. If we fail to acknowledge that (contemporary) cults are different in extremely importants ways from mainstream religions, then we are in danger of failing to protect those who are most vulnerable to them, namely young adults.

Consider this: if a young atheist person tells you that they've never been to a xtian church service but are thinking of attending one just to see what happens, would you warn them of the danger of being hypnotised, brainwashed, being made to give up their job, leave their family and hereafter devote all their time and creativity into raising money for the church?

What about if the same young atheist person tells you that they want to attend a meeting organised by one or other cult such as Moonies, scientologists, etc?

If you seriously think that the young person can come out of even one cult meeting as unscathed as they (mostly likely) would from a church service, then you clearly don't know that, unlike religions in general, cults pose an immediate danger at a very fundamental level to individuals.

This fact is widely recognised and is the reason why the richer cults such as scientology regularly try to sue people who describe them as cults, rather than as religions. Researchers studying the behaviour of cults get around this problem by calling them New Religions.

[Nirvanam]

By the way, I wonder if BinLaden will be to the Talebans what Jesus Christ has been to the Christians?!

The great prophet Muhammad *peace be upon him* more than makes up for Jesus. O here's one amazingly (amusingly) pious thing that many muslim families do...since our great Rasoul-Allah *peace be upon him* i.e. the prophet of allah was illiterate, these families keep at least one of their sons illiterate to honor THE example for men that the Almighty Allah *most benevolent, most merciful* created.

[Nick]

Consider this: if a young atheist person tells you that they've never been to a xtian church service but are thinking of attending one just to see what happens, would you warn them of the danger of being hypnotised, brainwashed, being made to give up their job, leave their family and hereafter devote all their time and creativity into raising money for the church?

Hmmm. Maybe yes. I'm not sure how far away that is from becoming a monk or nun. The principle difference is timing; the RC's get their clutches on the kids....

What about if the same young atheist person tells you that they want to attend a meeting organised by one or other cult such as Moonies, scientologists, etc?

That would depend on the susceptibility of the young atheist to persuasion, and their experience of life.

If you seriously think that the young person can come out of even one cult meeting as unscathed as they (mostly likely) would from a church service, then you clearly don't know that, unlike religions in general, cults pose an immediate danger at a very fundamental level to individuals.

I do accept though, that some sects are worse (, even a lot worse,) than others, but I do place them on the same continuum.

[Maria Mac]

Hmmm. Maybe yes. I'm not sure how far away that is from becoming a monk or nun. The principle difference is timing; the RC's get their clutches on the kids....

I agree. However, I specifically said the danger of cults is towards young adults. By that I mean people in their twenties who are free to make their own decisions and including those who've been raised without any religious indoctrination. If you seriously think someone like that is in danger of becoming a nun or monk after attending just one Mass then I can but disagree. I'd have no problem with either of kids attending a church service. In fact, I had no problem with them being taken to one when they were small. As long as they didn't make a habit of it, I was quite confident it wouldn't change their way of thinking.

That would depend on the susceptibility of the young atheist to persuasion, and their experience of life.

I evidently have not made myself understood. I am not talking about 'persuasion'. By 'brainwashing' I mean literally brainwashing the ability to think critically right out of one's brain using classic brainwashing techniques. No immunity is conferred by one's pre-existing beliefs or life experience. My information comes from Ian Haworth of the Cult Information Centre, himself a former cult member. According to him, all the evidence shows that those most vulnerable to cults are intelligent, educated younger people from middle-class backgrounds because these are the ones most likely to respond positively to the initial invitation and they all get ensnared. I wouldn't attend a cult meeting myself if I was paid to, while I'd happily accept a fee to attend a church service.

I do accept though, that some sects are worse (, even a lot worse,) than others, but I do place them on the same continuum.

I place them all on the same continuum too. I'm not for a minute suggesting that mainstream religions aren't bad and dangerous in their own ways, my point is that they are dangerous in different ways. Think 9/11 and the Waco massacre. We can combat the indoctrination of children in our schools if not their homes but, once they've grown up, they are left to their own devices and we tend to encourage them to question and investigate for themselves. Investigating a cult in anything but an official capacity can never be a good idea and that's why it's important be clear about exactly how they are different.