What is your general attitude towards those who believe in religion whether they are jewish, Muslim, Christian etc etc.
Do you get on well with any religious friends and neighbours?
Have you ever thought of believing in a religion at some point?
If you do not like the faiths, why?
If you DO, also why? Does this come from your family? Maybe something went bad during your life?
I get that Lemmy might have the same stereotype in Reddit that there are loads of atheists, but there’s a good reason why despite criticism of religion, it is still here.
P.S. I am not religious or anti religious in any fashion, I am agnostic.
Imagine if that person did all the same things they do, but without the label of “religion” being attached.
Charity? Awesome! Habitat for Humanity is an explicitly Christian organization and does great work. In my neighborhood, the local Lutheran and Quaker churches give out free food to the poor, and they don’t sneak any Lutheran or Quaker cooties into it. If you’re good to others because you think God wants you to be good to others, that still really does count as being good to others.
Prayer? Okay, take “religion” off of it and they’re meditating, thinking, or talking to themselves. That’s good. Unless they’re thinking and talking about torturing their neighbors eternally, or something creepy like that. (But even then, better to keep those fantasies to yourself than to act them out in public.) Die Gedanken sind frei — thoughts are free.
Going to worship services? Okay, they’ve got a weekly social event where they sing songs and listen to speeches. Sounds great, unless the songs are about “everyone outside this room is a terrible person and deserves to suffer forever” and the speeches are about hate politics. If they’re about how wonderful it is to be nice to each other, or being brave and standing up against oppression, or something else that would be positive even without the label of “religion” on it, great!
Dietary rules? It’s okay to have preferences, distinct cultures, cuisines, and so forth. For that matter: my family isn’t Jewish, but when I was little, we ate kosher beef hot dogs, because my mom expected the rabbis would care about the meat being sanitary. (Unfortunately in retrospect, kosher slaughter is, shall we say, not clearly better than secular slaughter.)
What you said is all true, but you are ignoring the negative aspects of religion.
Religious influence, both on their followers and on government, is anti-science, misogynistic, and anti-LGBT.
Religions are funded like pyramid schemes, with the most desperate and vulnerable as their victims.
Religious indoctrination is child abuse.
Anti-science, misogyny, etc. are bad independently of whether they are done in the name of religion, or pseudoscience, or political ideology. Doing bad things in the name of religion is exactly as bad as doing them in the name of communism, or capitalism, or racial ideology, etc.
Anti-science, misogyny, etc may be bad independently of religion, but they aren’t independent of religion. Religion is a source of these problems.
You can imagine a hypothetical religion that is simply a “social club” or whatever, but here in the real world religion comes with baggage.
Religion is why my cousin’s children have never seen a doctor in their life. Religion is why my gay friend in high school tried to kill himself. Religious indoctrination has led to lifelong shame and trauma in many of my friends.
And this was just from a “moderate” sect of Christianity- the millions living under fundamentalist religion have it even worse.
Every terrible thing done under religion has been done without religion. None of them have happened without people (except for killing the different). Maybe people are the problem and religion is just one of many tools that can be used to harm other people. Tribalism exists in many forms, religion in its many flavors being just one of them.
Saying “maybe people are the problem” is reductive and unhelpful. But I agree with you broadly, religion is just a system or a tool, it can be used for good or evil.
To judge if religion is a good system or a bad one, we can use a cost benefit analysis. This is what we have been attempting to do in this thread.
But when it comes to sensitive subjects like religion, many people have a tendency to avoid, overlook, and deny the associated costs.
Saying “religion is the problem” when the problem crops up in many different areas regardless of which religions are present in an area or if religion isn’t present at all makes it seem like you might be focusing on the wrong thing. Nationalism, religion, strong ideologies, groups with deep emotional bonds and a sense of insularity are all susceptible to the same things - charismatic leaders can easily direct their attention and they have a tendency towards directing their hostility towards groups that don’t fit into their group.
So, tribalism. And if one tool won’t work, or is removed completely from access, those who wish to use tribalism to mobilize a large group to help them achieve their goals will just use the next one that is available to them. The tools are rarely what are important to them, but the results. So I don’t see how focusing on one tool, even a particularly well-suited tool, will solve the problem.
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg
Maoism did a lot of evil without any religion. Were all of its perpetrators bad people?
Yepperoni, thanks for putting this so succinctly.
I like this interpretation but last I checked the vegans aren’t going to vote for a despot who will kill all non-vegans, and that they don’t view the death of all non-vegans as a positive thing. (Most vegans I know are keenly aware they can only participate in veganism because of modern agricultural, distribution, and economic systems. They know veganism is an elitist choice that a lot of the world cannot make.)
I think that’s the major difference here.
Sure. Voting for religious genocide is just as bad as voting for non-religious genocide: e.g. on the basis of nationalism, pseudoscience, or the like.
Agreed.
Wow, you sure did manage to slip in a bunch of self-serving misinformation about veganism for no fucking reason. Who are you actually trying to convince, I wonder. (I’m being sarcastic, I know perfectly well.)
I like this. You’re good people.
deleted by creator
I treat religion like my penis.
It’s ok not to have one.
It’s ok to have one.
It’s ok to be proud of it.
But don’t display it in public, and don’t shove it down people’s throats.
And NEVER whip it out in congress.
You aren’t born religious. You are indoctrinated. I grew up in a cult. It wasn’t nearly as bad as cults get, but it has its own insane
ramblings“teachings”I escaped my indoctrination because I took it too seriously. I wanted to adhere perfectly, which resulted in finding out how convoluted and hypocritical it is. It is impossible.
So in my confusion, I started to look more critically at the hows and whys. The result, religions all use the same dirty tactics to get people to believe. False promises, comforting lies and empty threats that will seem real to those who were taught magical thinking.
I reject religion.
But I cannot hate people who are religious for just being religious. They were a child when taught, or an adult so downtrodden they needed a fairy tale to continue life. Or perhaps just are a bit naive. It’s a slippery slope. So… I can’t blame people. I get it. I know what it’s like and it saddens me the older people get, the less likely they’ll ever escape the mental constriction religion brings.
I sure as fuck hate a religious person for commiting hate crimes. They can go to hell.
You are born with spiritual needs. It is clear that you still have unmet spiritual needs despite your religious trauma.
My spiritual need was liberation from this projective bullshit.
[x] doubt
Don’t project your needs onto others.
deleted by creator
I don’t care unless they force me to believe the way they do.
What would you say to a person that wont use preferred pronouns of a trans person?
If you’re trying to make an analogy here, that’s incredibly short sighted.
Forcing religious values down other ppls throats is trying to dictate their life.
“forcing” aka asking to be referred to with certain pronouns is asking to have your own life respected.
One is about having your beliefs respected, the other is demanding others to act as if they were part of your faith no matter if they believe or care.
Some religions believe that they should proselytize as many people as possible, so really not letting them convert you is disrespectful to their beliefs.
I agree that there’s a difference, but I’m not sure a simple argument like this really works since it is difficult to say one belief is ‘better.’
Proselytizing: You can say no without repercussions.
“Forcing Their Beliefs:” You have to follow the religion or you will face legal/societal consequences.
Not really the same thing at all though is it?
Also bit of a weird constructed example. A faith like that can only lead to it’s followers taking offense or religious totalitarianism.
Which is not something I’d engage with so idk why i would tolerate something so intolerant.
The comparison is also kinda failing since one is a belief and the other isn’t.
A more fitting comparison would be ostracising someone for their faith vs insisting to misgender someone despite better knowledge.
So then what would you say to a person that wont use preferred pronouns of a trans person?
I’d say if you can at all help it please be less of a cunt
I’d tell that person they’re being intolerant and offensive, and to fuck off.
And I’ll tell you that that is an unrelated question to the topic, and that you are being offensive by injecting that question in such a manner. You can pick your religion. You cannot pick whether or not you have gender dysphoria.
It’s not analogous nor related to the topic, but since you asked, this scenario requires a lot of assumptions.
Is said person intentionally misgendering? I’ll make it quick. “Please respect [trans person]'s preferences.” It’s not my business to force them to comply or not.
Taking a WAG at the number, I would say that 90% of people in your belief group would use soft power against someone that wouldnt go along with using their new pronouns. This includes things like banning them from social media, kicking them off youtube, debanking them, ect. Do you think that using influence like this is approapraite to get people to not offend the trans people?
No.
Okay then it sounds like you are like what normal christians are. The problem is that most of the people in your group will start yelling and use their soft force to get people to comply, which most christians dont do. So in the end your group is the one that is trying to use force to get people to follow their ideology.
What would you say to a person who refuses to acknowledge or take into consideration the belief of a religious individual?
I wouldnt say anything. Modern christians in america are much much more accepting than those of the “woke” philosophy.
It’s very different. Misgendering is illegal where I live, but you can’t be forced to care about someone else’s dumb beliefs
I am agnostic, and if a god exists, I hate them.
I consider myself an anti-theist. Religion is used to control unintelligent/mentally challenged people and shouldn’t exist in any form.
I don’t hate the people unless they are forcing it down my throat.
Congratulations, this is the vision philosophers shared during the Lumières
Ramen
All religions are made up. No one has ever proven that a “god” or supernatural entity exists, no one, ever. It’s all mythology, fiction and “supernatural” nonsense. Ghosts, angels, demons, gods, spirits, pick a name, pick a flavor, none of it is real. It’s like insisting that Harry Potter, James Bond, Tinkerbell, Captain Kirk or Superman are actually real living people / spirits / entities, and they have the ability to control you now and after you die. Just because you, or someone claims it’s real does not make it factual. You are allowed to believe in whatever you want to, but you are NOT allowed to force others to believe that same thing. If you truly believe in your “religion”, you would research it in every way possible, reading pro and con information to get a balanced understanding of what you decided to believe in. You will learn where all the stories of your religion originate from, and that will actually decide what you choose to believe in. Religion is a lifestyle choice.
I hate the belief not the believer
preach (pun intended)
Those who believe in an invisible sky wizard (or any other delusion) belong in psychotherapy.
As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.
There is zero evidence either way, the best we can say is that we don’t know.
Yeah man something about Russell’s tea pot
We have no evidence for gods, that’s it. There’s no need to provide evidence for absence of god, the burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim (that there’s a god/gods).
The problem with this theory is that we dont have a complete explanation for existence without the existence of a higher power.
Yep, but we have tool for trying to understand it. It’s called scientific method, and it has so far been able to help us understand the mechanics of the universe without resorting to crazy claims such as “yeah must have been super powered aliens”, which is the only offer from religion.
I do get that there’s a chance that it’s all bogus, and that there really is or was a god that created everything in a way we have been able to measure it, but why exactly should I believe it? Which story should I believe? ‘In this world of a million religions everyone prays the same way’, the same human made stories written over centuries trying to explain the world around us. In this context religion seems nothing more than a predecessor to scientific method turned into crowd control tool.
My main point is any philosophy about where humans came from is a matter of faith. I was just pointing out the issue where evolution doesnt sufficiently explain things, but most atheists are aware of this or just handwave away the problem.
I suppose on picking a religion you would need to look at what makes the most logical sense, and is most consistent. Also I would look at what has the best track record with the best outcome.
Yeah that religion is called science. To suggest that gaps exist on evolution so we need to go examine religion is an a joke of an argument. The difference in successful capturing of the reality of the process of life by the theory of evolution to any religion is galactic in scale. Your justification is ridiculous and only exists because you cannot let go of the lies someone taught you as a child in order to control you.
The joke is that you think you follow science and then outright discount things when they are not what you want.
Evolution theory DOES explain where we came from, and the theory is proven billion times over and over. It’s insanity to believe anything else. As Dawkins neatly put it, we have more evidence for evolution theory than we have for Holocaust.
but most atheists are aware of this or just handwave away the problem.
No, ‘atheists’ do not handwave problems found in scientific theories away but study it until it’s no longer a problem. What religion does is just says “it must be gods” and throws any reason to thrash bin
The issue is you guys do handwaving about how the basic building blocks started and then go on to look at fossil progression. You guys need to stop and look at how it seems to be impossible for DNA to develop and how evolution doesnt have a good explaination for it.
deleted by creator
How do the the Abrahamic three all have a terrible track record?
deleted by creator
The problem is that DNA and associated parts are too complex to evolve, so there is no explaination how it would have gotten to that point. You can say that religion doesnt do a good job explaining, but the various religions have one even though its kind of cheating. Evolution seems impossible without another unknown factor which makes it another faith based system.
I’m wondering who taught you that. There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence, proof, and reason for evolution. It makes absolute sense, is simple, and easy to comprehend if you’re willing to open your mind and disregard what religion has tried to teach you.
There are lots of good explanations out there, so I won’t bother trying – but basically the most difficult thing to understand about evolution is the incredible amount of time it took to get us to where we are today. Once you see that drawn out visually, it makes a lot more sense.
It’s not something you can believe or not believe, because it’s fact. Instead, you either accept it or don’t accept it. Most people accept the existence of gravity because it’s so easily demonstrated. Once you give evolution a minute of your time, it’s equally easy to accept.
Sure, evolution is fine, except for the most important part which is the very start. Without those basic building blocks then it doesnt work.
isn’t a ‘higher power’ just kicking the can down the road?
It could be, I guess it would all depend on the theory of what a higher power is. If its God, then thats the endpoint, if its aliens or simulation theory, then it definitely is a kick.
i am not sure what’s the difference there. why is one an endpoint, and the others aren’t?
God would be an endpoint in that its the full explaination, where as if aliens put the basic building blocks of life on earth then the question is where did the aliens come from.
Unknowns just exists, religion assigns the unknown form. Why is that justified and even more incredible important to those who believe that it be true and to make choices due to the assignment of that form?
Because science tries to understand the unknown using reason, religion throws the reason away and says it was gods.
I get what you’re saying, but saying people who choose to believe something that can’t be proven and hasn’t been disproven need psychotherapy is like saying the same for color preferences. Sometimes there is no right answer and people should be able to choose.
Opinions are opinions. Opinions don’t change the fact that earth is orbiting the sun or that religions are a hoax
First, religions and the existence of God are two different things, just like the existence of the earth and the earth being flat are two different things. Likewise, the existence of religions is no guarantor of God’s existence, nor is there many flaws proof of his non-existence. And unknowns are facts we haven’t discovered or proven yet, much like germ theory, or fanciful ideas which haven’t been debunked, such as the idea that an imbalance of humors was the cause of disease.
Literally anything that anyone can ever imagine, is not all equally probable.
As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.
This position is a straw man. Atheists generally do not argue that God categorically does not exist. Instead, we usually say that we don’t believe in God because there is insufficient evidence. Much like the proverbial invisible unicorn in your backyard - since there is no evidence that it exists, there is no reason for it to affect how we go about our daily lives.
When it comes to whether you’re agnostic or atheist, I think it helps to answer the following question on a scale of 0 - 10: How confident are you that God exists? If you say around 5, then you’re agnostic. If you say around 1 or 2, then you’re an atheist.
The one thing that still remains unclear with regards to science and god is the big bang.
The way I have heard it explained is that before the big bang there was nothing.
Which to my mind becomes:
First there was nothing, which exploded
This does not make sense to me, how can nothing explode?
So there are three categories of answer to this question:
A. There was something before the big bang which exploded, though this offeres not explanation of how the thing that exploded came into existance, I have heard theories about how the universe is cyclical and how it will eventually collapse into a new big bang, but that doesn’t answer the queation about the first big bang.
B. God exists and triggered the big bang, that means that the god entity exists outside of our universe.
C. We are just a highly advanced simulator, the big bang was the the program starting our simulation.
There is no rule that says the universe must make sense to human beings. In fact the more we learn about it - subatomic particles, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, etc. the stranger it becomes and the less it appears to operate in ways that are intuitive to our primitive primate brains.
Hell, even space and time might not be fundamental properties, and could themselves be abstractions which emerge from an even deeper underlying reality…
All of which is to say your list should have an extra option:
D. Who The Fuck Knows?
That’s fair.
I was about to add that option, but forgot about it.
I guess what makes me annoyed about it is that we know that the big bang happened, but we don’t know what triggered it or what was before.
The way I have heard it explained is that before the big bang there was nothing.
It’s more like what happened before big bang has no consequences to what happened after. Because this, we have little idea what happened before because there’s no direct evidence.
That is a new way of putting it that I have not heard before, I like it, it doesn’t answer my questions as much as defecting them. It forces me to realize thsybit doesn’t matter.
I believe in that which we can prove, because we have evidence of those things.
Not invisible sky wizards. Lol
It’s ok, I’ll pray for you /j
I have a spiritual need and that’s liberation from this discrimitory bullshit /srs
I don’t mind them doing their thing at home, but I could do without them shoving their lifestyle in everybody’s face in public.
I don’t tell non-straight people they can’t have their pride parade, I don’t tell people they shouldn’t kiss or hold hands in public, I don’t tell religious people they can’t have public displays, either. What I object to is if any of those groups insist I join them, or insist I don’t.
I hope my sarcasm was clear
Growing up in religious circles I kinda learned that there’s no good in religion. Surely there’s good religious people, but they spread the evil word the same as those who want to bring the oppressive shit onto others.
Religion has never been good for anything but for controlling masses
I’m atheist. My mom is a devout catholic (and raised me that way) and my dad is an atheist Jew. I never truly believed and mostly think religion is dumb, but I’m fine with everyone believing or not as they see fit. I’m not fine when others’ religion is forced on anyone else - e.g., abortion restrictions, the 10 commandments being displayed in Louisiana classrooms.
I just don’t support dogmatic thinking and indoctrination, especially when it creeps into politics, which is inevitable at the scale of the most popular religions.
In theory I have no problem with other people’s faith, but in practice it degrades the critical thinking capacity of our population and, paradoxically, the moral capacity as well. That’s a net negative in my opinion.
Charities exist without religion. I think religions often teach good moral frameworks, though very traditional. But those come with a huge caveat that you cut out a big hole in your brain for the belief that God exists and cares about how you behave. That one idea leads to so much trouble, from false prophets to normalized misogyny and hatred of gay people.
Mostly I find them annoying. I mildly understand the need for human meaning as it kind of, tends to come up later at night, or for the elderly, or when life really sucks or you tend to even just be really really bored right.
I also understand some of the benefits, right, like. As much as people will despise to admit it, you don’t get, say, the number zero without the Muslim science guys, and you don’t get science without the enlightenment which stemmed out of some weirdass Catholic Christian theory guys. and then everyone’s all like, oh no well you can’t attribute that to the Catholics and if anything they hampered progress, and I’d say, well, maybe, maybe, but also maybe science sucks as we commonly understand it and maybe also you can’t really divorce any part of things from their cultural context, or else things get fucky.
On the other hand I find them annoying and I find that all to be totally null and void because the vast majority of people are just using it as an opiate to placate literally all of their anxieties about the world with a bunch of meaningless thought terminating cliche style statements, and even actively reinforce their own participation in some of the worst aspects of their own culture and society even at points in which they really don’t want to or know that it’s horrible and is causing them pain.
So I dunno, mostly it sucks.
