There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

America's nonreligious are a growing, diverse phenomenon. They really don't like organized religion

Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

Jaysyn ,
@Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

Religion ruins everything.

BreadstickNinja ,

Besides architecture. Cathedrals are dope. But everything else, yeah.

Can_you_change_your_username ,

I don't hate some older religious music.

tetris11 ,
@tetris11@lemmy.ml avatar

I do like the sense of harmony that comes from singing together, but yes you don’t need a church for that.

tsonfeir ,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

If only they could live in that harmony

JesusLikesYourButt ,

The Shining’s opening theme was based on a medieval Christian hymn, day of wrath or Dies Irae. I love deep vocals and latin lyrics, it’s so soothing.

cantstopthesignal ,

Religion was at the center of everything 500 years ago. It’s gonna take credit for a lot of stuff because you could barely do anything art related without religious involvement.

query ,

And every now and then they’d go on a rampage destroying other people’s and eras’ art.

sanguine_artichoke ,
@sanguine_artichoke@midwest.social avatar

Still happening, even… such as the Taliban destroying ancient statues.

Honytawk ,

Don’t forget about the part where the only way you could be somewhat literate was if you were indoctrinated into their little cult.

barsoap ,

Not all musicians believe in god but all believe in Bach.

dQw4w9WgXcQ ,

But maybe stay out of rock?

dditty ,

Gregorian chants are epic

Pat_Riot ,
@Pat_Riot@lemmy.today avatar

That first Enigma record is a regular in my listening because of exactly that.

glimse ,

I agree…except the Sagrada Familia which fills me with irrational anger. Looks like Poseidon walked on shore and squeezed out a sand turd. It’s so goddamn hideous to me. If I was the god who Gaudi built it for, he would not make it into heaven. I hate it so much.

treefrog ,

Some religions. Depending on how you use the word. Legally Buddhism is a federally recognized religion for example.

And it has so little in common with how Christian’s use the word I consider it a misnomer. But I’ll keep enjoying the federal protections.

qooqie ,

And sihks! Those guys are just the absolute nicest people I’ve ever met, kinda wish I knew more about it

Jaysyn ,
@Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

I have to agree with you there.

Pips ,

All Eastern religions have their own problems and crimes committed in the name of their beliefs. Christianity might have some of the more global harms, but it’s hardly alone in being harmful.

ConditionOverload ,
@ConditionOverload@lemmy.world avatar

People of every religion have done horrific things, even Sikhs. I’d know since I’m originally from India.

Meowoem ,

And yet 70% of Sikh women who were surveyed by Sikh Women’s Aid reported they’d suffered domestic and sexual abuse in the home.

theguardian.com/…/domestic-and-sexual-abuse-of-si…

The story of the girl slapped in the face by her mother for getting raped by her uncle is especially harrowing ‘who will marry you now?’ it’s vile.

Jaysyn ,
@Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

Shame about the genocide, huh?

amanneedsamaid ,

That was perpetrated by Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar, whos actions are so fargone from traditional Buddhist teachings they can safely be considered not Buddhists IMO.

SmoothIsFast ,

Ah like the Christian nationalists are so far gone they don’t represent Christianity right? Such a dismissive take against the reality of religions and their point to be a source of control over a population and society.

amanneedsamaid ,

Yup

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

And no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

Cosmonauticus ,

I wish you ppl would stop with your fetishization for any religion outside of the Abrahamic ones. Sikhs are just like any group of ppl and have committed fucked shit in the name of their ideology.Imperial (let’s invade and massacre Asia) Japan was Buddhist who used it as justification for nationalism, violence, and persecution. Which sounds pretty damn similar to what Jews, Muslims, and Christians do/did. And let’s not forget Hindu nationalism and their problematic caste system

And no this isn’t a bashing of religion as a whole because I personally find the argument that religion is the root of all evil as childish. I have no issues with anyone believing anything they want. It only becomes a problem when you feel the need to impose your belief on others. EVERY group including religion, race, class, ethnicity, sex, political party, etc is guilty of that

snooggums ,
@snooggums@kbin.social avatar

The non-Abrahamic religions stick with thr peace and love parts in the US because they are not the dominant religion. Any religion ends up being cooped into being used to justify violence when it is on top even when the core tenets are supposed to be peaceful and accepting.

This also tends to be true of most human organizational structures, but religion adds a layer that make it easier for members to accept extreme behavior by the people in their group.

afraid_of_zombies ,

There were Roman Christians who made passionate arguments for freedom of religion, before they took over. Not so much after.

Aceticon ,

Moralists with authoritarian leanings are the problem.

Plenty of those around nowadays who, instead of a religions, latch on to some well meaning cause and then proceed to try and shove other people around under the cover of said cause, bringing along the more tribalist (hence unthinking and easilly manipulated with the right words) members of the cause, all the way to pretty much pogroms and purges (though, fortunatelly, not normally involving killing people).

Whilst the vehicle (religion, some ideologies, politics, any “cause” supposedly beyond questioning including nationalism), being something that most people follow in a mindless way is ideal for such subvertion and abuse as an easy source of supporting usefull idiots for people indulging their lust for power over others) the reall problem is, IMHO, a certain type of individual who will seek social situations they can abuse to be powerful (all the way down to the school social bully who uses connection rather than physicallity to have power over others), so it’s really such people we should be weary of and alert for rather than their chosen vehicles.

Meowoem ,

Yeah absolutely, and the problem is they’ll always find an excuse - someone on here recently argued to me that since we punch Nazis we should also punch people who use words like ‘unalive’ because it’s an attack on our culture - he was being entirely serious too.

You can see people rubbing their hands in glee at every climate change story too and it’s scary, I’ve been involved with a lot of green groups and eco-positive movements which are full of wonderful people who really care about making a better world - then there are overly online lunatics who never lifted a finger to help native species or anything like that but have decided it’s a wonderful excuse to live out their most destructive and hateful fantasies.

Religion is a way of harnessing that awful impulse in people and using it for the benefit of a small theocratic aristocracy, it’s a way of saying ‘you can get away with being the awfull person you want to be if you do it in the name of our gang and to our enemies’

treefrog ,

People will fetishize anything and use anything to justify violence.

Buddhist practitioners can be as dogmatic as Christians, but having been brought up as one and studied the other extensively, Buddhism is not a religion in the Western sense of the word.

In fact there’s many teachings on avoiding dogmatic views in both ancient and modern Buddhism. Because dogmatism brings about the exact suffering we’re talking about.

Yes, Buddhists are as failable as anyone else. But the heart of the dharma begins with right view, which essentially means, don’t be dogmatic!

Which is the exact opposite of how I was brought up in a Christian family.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Buddhism is not a religion in the Western sense of the word.

Every religion claims that. Christians will tell you it is a lifestyle and a relationship. Jews will tell you it is a religion and culture. Buddhists will claim to be a philosophy and a mindset. No one wants to admit that they are just another way of doing X.

treefrog ,

Of the three you listed only one doesn’t follow commandments given by an invisible supernatural entity.

And this exact false equivalence is why Buddhism isn’t a religion the way the West uses the word.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Cool we are just going to ignore all the Buddhists gods, like the seven headed snake (commonly depicted as the Buddha of Wednesday afternoon) and Maru. As well as the gods they borrowed along the way like Genash and about a million dead monks. We are also going to ignore all the passages in the Pali where the Siddathrata talks about his past incarnations and how he decided to decided to come to earth one more time to save humanity.

Hey remind me again, in the heart sutra what is the reason Siddathrata gives for the importance of giving gold to monks? I forget. Maybe I forget because he refers to it as a secret mystery.

Go ahead and continue. I want you to tell me more about what half remembered YouTube video from a fourlong secular Buddhist you saw once. I am just going to sit here and sort thru the hundreds of photos I have of me in South East Asia.

treefrog , (edited )

I’m only replying to your top paragraph because I sense a lot of hostility in your post and don’t have the patience at the moment to wade through it carefully.

Buddhism doesn’t extinguish other beliefs when it interacts with them. Nagas (the seven headed snake, who is not a God but more like a spirit, is a naga) already existed in southeast Asia prior to Buddhism. Likewise Genesh is a Hindu diety that already existed in India.

Some Zen Buddhist traditions even go so far as to draw parallels with Christian beliefs in the Kingdom of God and the ultimate dimension (a Buddhist concept for how everything is connected and interdependent).

Finally, I didn’t argue that Buddhism doesn’t incorporate the idea of spiritual beings (Gods, Demons, they can all be found in most Buddhist traditions). But they’re not beings to worship or revere simply on account of their spiritual status. Or to listen too without question like in authoritarian belief systems. So, it’s likely your post is a straw man but also possible you misunderstood my position and I didn’t communicate clearly enough. Either way, what you’re arguing against wasn’t my position. (See italics right above and below if you need clarification).

The Buddha said don’t take my word. See for yourself. And Buddhism is being incorporated under other names in all sorts of modern psychology practices. Because the shit works and is based on science (investigation of mental phenomenon with an open and unbiased mind) not dogma.

I hope someday you understand the difference. But I can tell by your tone that nothing I can say today will change your mind.

So this post isn’t for you. But the silent witnesses on the fence.

Take care.

afraid_of_zombies ,

You are picking and choosing. You choose the few verses where Siddharth told you to verify what he said but you are ignoring the other parts where he instructed a brain breaking meditation practice that if followed would make you believe you grasp it. Nothing new or original. It is basic cult programming. For a man who supposedly demanded that people check his work not a single one of his followers has bothered to critique it in 25 centuries. Or if they did they were buried in a shallow grave somewhere.

Every religion does this. Enough chanting, singing, group activities, repetitions, shaming of heretical thought and eventually you will believe that you have the key to the universe and lo it is exactly the doctrine you were taught! What are the odds that the perfect way to exist just happens to be the way you happened to study?

The greatest extreme is of course in Zen strain. Concentration for endless hours on a paradox, not at all like meditation on the Trinity, right?

Way to deflect btw. As if I don’t know what Samsura is. Noticed you didn’t answer my question about the Heart Sutra. We both know why.

Basically you can’t accept that there really is not much of a difference between the two religions. The Buddha was never just a man, he was a cosmic being that came to earth according to the stories. You are following India’s Jesus. Just the Pali itself is twice the length of the KJV Bible and of all those hundreds of pages you pick out a few choice sentences making this celestial being sound a bit sciencey. You ignore all the stuff he got wrong, like his cosmology and geography, and expert shop to find the stuff he got right. You completely brush away the religion itself is practiced and I am firmly convinced that if you went to say Cambodia you would try to correct a monk with an “umm actually”.

barsoap ,

Buddhism has a talent for conversion by syncretism. Tibetian Buddhism is Buddhism meeting Tibetian Shamanism, Chan/Zen is Buddhism meeting Taoism (which already was very close), both Therevada and Mayayana are rather more Hindu, and what we’re seeing in the west is Humanist/Christian, depending on the practitioner. A good dividing line might be belief in reincarnation: Legit Atheists don’t care, hell-conditioned folks find relief, whereas originally the whole thing was Hindu and Buddhism calls it dhukka (suffering, also mind that it’s tied into the caste system) and promises a way to break out of it. So what was a jail in one context serves as a comfy blanket in another.

In that sense it’s very much a mistake to see Buddhism as a uniform whole, or western adoption as appropriation or fetish, or really infer terribly much about one strain of Buddhism from the other.

Then, second note: All those eastern things should be compared, if you want to compare them properly, not to western religion or churches but to that and the whole philosophical heritage dating back to at least Socrates. And gods know in that context we don’t need religion to fuck up, we’re still recovering from Descartes and like to ignore inconvenient truths such that Newton was an Alchemist. Christians like to ignore that all the stuff that is actually valuable about Christianity, is more than memes furnished to propagate the system (and doing damage while doing so), is lifted from the Stoics. Racism once was “scientific”. I could go on and on.

amanneedsamaid ,

Buddhism was probably 10% the justification for nationalism that Shinto was in Japan, so that’s a pretty bad example.

Also, using Buddhism to encourage nationalism ≠ Buddhisms fault

Cosmonauticus ,

Every arguments you made can be used for Christianity

amanneedsamaid ,

I would make the same argument, and say that radicalized religion is the issue, not religion itself.

Most every religion becomes radicalized over time, but that doesnt define the inital religious teachings.

So yeah, Christian nationalism ≠ Christianity’s fault.

MNByChoice ,

I used to think Buddhism was an exception, sadly it is not.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception.

amanneedsamaid ,

Buddhist sects as a whole are not exception, but I couldn’t find an example of violence at “its inception”. All the examples I could find are from much later.

Syrc ,

Not really, it’s just that people can’t stand by this

m3t00 ,
@m3t00@lemmy.world avatar

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called Religion Poisons Everything. Same idea, long form. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Fisk400 ,

Even religious groups hate organized religion. They just make an exception for the one they happen to be part of.

negativenull ,

How thoughtful of God to arrange matters so that, wherever you happen to be born, the local religion always turns out to be the true one

  • Richard Dawkins
givesomefucks ,

Sometimes I wonder what Abraham would think knowing literal billions of people worldwide worship the god he made up.

And what he thinks about how all the different sects all hate each other so much.

Daft_ish ,

I know what he would think. “What the fuck??”

Honytawk ,

Nah, probably not something in Enlgish

jballs ,
@jballs@sh.itjust.works avatar

Ricky Gervais said something super interesting to Stephen Colbert, who is a Catholic. It was something like “We actually agree on a lot more than you think. You think that thousands of other religions aren’t true. I think the same thing, plus one more.”

negativenull , (edited )

Early Christians were accused of being atheists by the Romans, since they didn’t believe in most gods.

Daft_ish ,

Christians were atheist before it was cool

andallthat ,

The one thing most religions agree on is that all other religions should be eradicated from the world until only the true one remains. Turns out they are ALL right!

paddirn ,

I don’t mind people going to Church and practicing their religion, as long as they stay in their lanes and they’re not trying to force their religious beliefs on everybody else. Trying to better yourself and your community is great, there’s a ton of really nice people out there who go to Church and are just all around good people. It’s all the assholes that think their belief trumps everyone else’s rights that need to eat shit.

givesomefucks ,

Not minding your own business is pretty much why Europeans settled North America…

The Pilgrims love to say they escaped persecution, but really they were far right extremists who were all pissed off most of Europe wouldn’t follow their strict rules.

So they came to America and started pumping out as many kids as possible. With the goal to become the majority so they could force everyone to follow their rules.

We’re worse off because there’s no more “empty” land to send them all too. If we ever colonize another planet, it’s 100% going to be extremists overwhelmingly signing up to go first. Until then, we’re stuck with them.

afraid_of_zombies ,

None of my family were pilgrims. I don’t think you can just ignore the tens of millions of immigrants from Europe who weren’t pilgrims

vonbaronhans ,

I think their point is that the pilgrims set the cultural precedents for what would later become America, to which later immigrants would be beholden.

I don’t know how true that is, but I think “protestant work ethic” is at least one example of that sort of thing.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I think they can make their own point and there response was much different than what you just said

Stabbitha ,

Except it wasn’t, your reading comprehension just sucks and you’re needlessly aggressive about it

afraid_of_zombies ,

Except it was but hey go ahead and make it about me.

_g_be ,

my family

I don’t think

you made it about you, doofus

afraid_of_zombies ,

Generic you.

Ebennz ,

I think you’re a dumb removed that made a completely worthless point about your family not being pilgrims. How bout that

afraid_of_zombies ,

Nope but D for trying.

givesomefucks ,

Would they have came here if the pilgrims didn’t first?

Like, not just “would they have wanted to” but would the Native population have repopulated the shoreline by then and repelled any settlers like they did the vikings?

The pilgrims were successful at gaining a foothold because they showed up in a place and time the local population had mostly just died off from sickness and the survivors initially helped the pilgrims.

50 years later, even 20 or 10 years later and it would be a different story.

afraid_of_zombies ,

The Pilgrims didn’t come here first (of the Europeans). They were beaten by multiple different European groups.

Like, not just “would they have wanted to” but would the Native population have repopulated the shoreline by then and repelled any settlers like they did the vikings?

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the French traders that came before or the Spanish pushing upwards from the entire continent they had control over?

The pilgrims were successful at gaining a foothold because they showed up in a place and time the local population had mostly just died off from sickness and the survivors initially helped the pilgrims.

Not relevant to your argument. Also I am fairly confident you are mixing up the Pilgrims and the Purtains. But hey facts don’t matter anymore so believe whatever you want.

givesomefucks ,

When you make comments like that, people stop trying to help you…

Although I’ve noticed a trend where people like you assume they “win” when the other person gives up helping you. Just a heads up that’s not what it means.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Oh that is what you call it. “Helping”. Cute.

Bread ,

The sun would be a good place, plenty of space.

eestileib ,

“Staying in your lane” is the exact opposite of what Christians and Muslims are explicitly ordered to do. Convert acquisition is the primary objective of both faiths.

givesomefucks , (edited )

The Bible says if a family member considers another religion (or you just suspect they are) it’s your duty to God to kill them before it spreads to other people in your family.

It’s why ill never trust the people who claim they have to follow the bible literally. Either they don’t know what it says, or they’re absolute psychos.

Edit:

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy …

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage

calypsopub ,

The Bible does not say that. What.

givesomefucks ,

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy …

Batbro ,

Huh, til

dragonflyteaparty ,

Quote from the Bible?

givesomefucks ,

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy …

M0ty ,

It talks to Jews in ancient Israel about gods of nations that surrounded them.

givesomefucks ,

Oh…

So some of it is outdated and we shouldn’t follow the bible literally?

I already don’t, you better go tell the Christians to shut the fuck up about LGBTQ…

M0ty ,

Good job on discovering dispensationalism. About LGBT, there isn’t a single place in Bible, old or new testament where isn’t put in a positive light

givesomefucks ,

About LGBT, there isn’t a single place in Bible, old or new testament where isn’t put in a positive light

It’s hard to tell what you were trying to say, but any attempt to clarify that is going to make it really easy to point out how wrong you are.

So I don’t expect you to even try

Btw:

For anyone wondering what “dispensationalism” means, it’s a thing Christians invented so they can ignore the parts of the bible that they don’t agree with. While saying the parts they do believe in are the literal words of God and have to be followed.

It’s a shitty cop out

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

About LGBT, there isn’t a single place in Bible, old or new testament where isn’t put in a positive light

That’s just simple not true.

In the old testament it says that all homosexuals must be killed, and in the new testament that homosexuals cannot go to heaven.

How is that a positive light?

KonalaKoala , (edited )
@KonalaKoala@lemmy.world avatar

Well, I heard somewhere that it is written in the bible that those who scorn the bible will be visited by apocalypse, fire, earthquake, and flood which will obliterate your cities, but for those who believe in the bible will save themselves and find true redemption.

And I also heard somewhere it may have also stated in the Bible that the power and the greatness of God cannot be denied. Those who reject the Path to enlightenment must be destroyed.

electrogamerman ,

Exactly this.

Dont forget the part about having as many children as possible and convert them too.

There is no religion telling their servants to love their children even if they are not religious.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I wouldn’t say I mind it but like seeing someone passed out from drug use I would rather they didn’t do that.

kromem ,

Honestly while I get that the whole “you do you” mantra is the politically appropriate line these days…

No, I’m fucking not ok with people practicing their religions.

I’m really not ok with people telling their children that it’s not only possible for dead bodies to get back up and float up into the sky, but that it 100% happened and is the only reason they aren’t going to suffer eternally.

I’ll not ok with getting together to talk about how men are inherently better than women and that it was fine that an old dude raped a 9 year old because she was mature for her age.

I’m not ok with passing along the instructions that who your parents were defines an appropriate social caste for the rest of your life based on the supposed mechanics of resurrection.

These are not appropriate things for a modern society, and honestly I’m tired of pretending that it is fine.

Yes, I think the right to have the government not interfere in religion is important, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not I’m ‘fine’ with the superstitions from an age when people peed on their hands to clean them continuing to be given a social pass purely out of respect for ancestral tradition.

stewie3128 ,

They need to start paying taxes too. Church is a business of graft.

electrogamerman ,

The thing is the whole purpose of religion is to force beliefs into others to attract them into the religion and make them pay money. THAT’S LITERALLY WHY RELIGIONS WERE INVENTED.

There is no “Im religious but I let other live their lifes.” They are constantly being told to invite friends and family to convert them and to have 10 children, so the children can be converted too.

electrogamerman ,

Instead of having anti lgbt protests, or anti abortion protests, we should really start having anti religion protests. They are really a cancer to society.

WuTang ,
@WuTang@lemmy.ninja avatar

anti-nihilistic protest too…

gentooer ,

Something tells me you don’t know what nihilism is

WuTang ,
@WuTang@lemmy.ninja avatar

and you are pedantic, pal.

gentooer ,

Good point, I hadn’t thought of it that way

s_s ,

Doesn’t fucking matter, now does it? 😅

WuTang ,
@WuTang@lemmy.ninja avatar

13 nihilists downvoted this comment.

Exatron ,

You really don’t understand what a nihilist is.

atkion ,

I don’t understand this comment. What harm has nihilism caused that is worth protesting?

not_woody_shaw ,

They peed on The Dudes rug.

dangblingus ,

What do you mean by this? Nihilism is the one true philosophy.

American_Communist22 ,
@American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml avatar

i mean it has its uses but calling it the one true ideology is not an educated statement

maniclucky ,

I’m really confused. Why is nihilism worth protesting?

ThePac ,

Creationist spotted.

HawlSera ,

We tried New Atheism That shit is toxic

bob_wiley ,
@bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    electrogamerman ,

    Exactly. Live and let live. Except religious groups are not letting other live their lifes.

    bob_wiley ,
    @bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    electrogamerman ,

    The problem is they are still part of the same group.

    If there is an anti lgbt protest organized by christians or muslims or whatever, sure im not saying 100% of all christians and muslims are there, but even if its 1% of the christians or muslims, these 1% are still in church with the rest of the christians or muslims, and the remaining 99% are not doing anything about it. They are not coning out and saying “That 1% of religious people are not a part of us”. They all care is about growing their religious groups, and anything else doesn’t matter.

    bob_wiley ,
    @bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    electrogamerman ,

    First of all, I dont associate myself with people doing bad things to others. It’s really easy to do honestly. I recommend you to do it too.

    Second, are you saying is ok for religious people to be antilgbt because other people are part of some group, by choice or not, that associates with people doing things you, or others, think is evil?

    thelastknowngod ,

    I used to have that really common thought of “I don’t care what you believe in. Just don’t try to push your opinion on me.”

    No. It’s bullshit.

    The very existence of religion is a psychological drain on society. We are all worse off the longer it stays around. There is no such thing as a good religious person and anyone who says they are religious I immediately distrust.

    Chunk ,

    I don’t immediately distrust religious people but I do kind of roll my eyes and smirk a little bit on the inside.

    Octavio ,

    If I’m lucky I can manage to keep the eyeroll and smirk on the inside. I’m kind of inelegant with social graces though.

    applebusch ,

    Yeah. It’s at the root of a lot of the problems with conservatives in the US. Religion trains people in believing because they were told to believe, and holding to these beliefs in the face of all suffering and hardship. It’s a gateway drug to conspiracy theories and paranoid delusions.

    Honytawk ,

    Gateway drug to conspiracy theories?

    Religion IS a conspiracy theory

    Enkrod ,
    @Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

    There is no such thing as a good religious person

    That’s a bridge too far for me.

    Yes, faith is in and off itself detrimental to our society. Religiosity is a strong detrimental force, a mind-virus, a meme that damages the ability to clearly perceive reality.

    But just like people who are infected with an infectious virus aren’t bad, not all religious people are automatically bad people. I don’t think they are good because they are religious, but that doesn’t mean they are not good or not religious. So let us not fall into the same absolutist thoughts as the fervent deniers of secular goodness.

    thelastknowngod ,

    The good ones enable the shitty ones.

    Case ,

    Agreed.

    I have met good people who are Christian. They usually don’t cowl all their behavior behind god.

    There you’re friends dad, who barely knows you, who helps you get your car running so his kid and friends can make it to a metal show. He didn’t like metal, but he kept it to himself other than saying it wasn’t his genre, which is a fair statement.

    Why did he devote an afternoon and a couple trips to auto zone? Because all in all we were good kids. He wanted us to have fun, but to arrive (and ultimately) come home safe.

    stolid_agnostic ,

    The comment you are responding to is reactionary in nature and surely the result of a great deal of pain and trauma at the hands of the sort of people they are referring to. In this case, I think it is ok to let someone express their emotions and assume that they don’t really mean for it to be a universal statement.

    killeronthecorner ,
    @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world avatar

    Why would you assume they don’t mean it to be universally applied?

    The biggest religions in the world harbor the largest rings of pedophiles, bigots and oppressors of women and children that exist.

    There are surely religious people that consider themselves good and act in a moral way, but their support of organizations that allow and defend such abhorrent values and behavior defies that.

    As someone put further down “the good ones enable the bad ones”. So while you or I might not take the same stance in our own lives, I can absolutely understand why someone might not want anything to do with religion or religious people.

    stolid_agnostic ,

    I’m trying to be charitable to the person who started this part of the thread. There are most definitely perfectly good religious people out there though they are involved with toxic organizations.

    killeronthecorner ,
    @killeronthecorner@lemmy.world avatar

    Is being involved with a toxic organization not toxic? Or are you saying these people are victims of their religion?

    stolid_agnostic ,

    IRT the first part, I think so. Even if you’re a genuinely kind person, if you support an organization that practices cruelty, you are supporting cruelty.

    IRT the second part, I wasn’t saying that, but would agree with that statement–people are often a victim of their cultures.

    ThePenitentOne ,

    Religious people push their beliefs on people all the time, that's what it is made to do so people can concentrate power. If a religious person has kids, you can guess how they are going to think. The whole idea is just complete bullshit and so stupid that anybody with a capacity to think critically knows it is false. Only people incapable of self reflection or thinking actually believe it.

    MonkRome ,

    There is no such thing as a good religious person

    I’ve known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world, and never pushed their beliefs on anyone else. “Good” and “evil” are very reductive and simplistic terms. Good people can have beliefs that are not good for society and they are not completely defined by that. If we go to that absolute then there isn’t a good person that exists. Pretty much everyone harbors beliefs, irrespective of religion, that when examined may be detrimental to society, they just don’t know their own blind spots.

    cogman ,

    Well said. Though I will say that we need to stop giving religions passes for bigotry.

    Churches in the US get huge tax breaks, can set up explicitly racist schools, or they can operate worse than the worst MLM. Some of the followers are somewhat to blame, but really it’s the organizations as a whole that need to be revisited.

    Why should my tax dollars subsidize a church building where the pastor tells their congregation that people like me are an evil that should be purged from society? Why should they subsidize a pastor that has a private jet? Or a church that actively protects child abusers and/or wife beaters?

    And frankly, it’s only certain religions that receive these sort of benefits. Any sort of native religion or niche religion won’t get half the benefits we give to multimillion dollar religions.

    thelastknowngod ,

    I’ve known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world

    Being religious is not a requirement for doing good in the world. If the religion did not exist these extremely religious people you know could continue to do good in the world while not simultaneously supporting organizations that enable corruption, abuse, dishonesty, violence, oppression, etc, etc…

    If anyone is still believing in these hokey stories or exploitative organizations they are either willfully ignorant to the world around them, gullible rubes who are victims of a centuries old scam, or actively benefitting from that exploitation.

    I stand by my statements. Religion is a virus. It’s a net negative in the world that stands in the way of all human progress.

    MonkRome ,

    I was responding to you saying “there’s no such thing as a good religious person”. I don’t really disagree with the rest of your perspective, yet your arguing as if you assume I do. I think it’s reductive and crass to judge someone on a single data point. That was my primary point.

    stolid_agnostic ,

    As a gay person, I have a saying that is similar: “When I meet someone who says they are conservative, I know that I have just met someone who wants me to suffer.”

    sanpedropeddler ,

    What is it you hate so much about religion? I could see disliking specific religious practices, but what problem does every religion share that makes you immediately distrust all religious people?

    Rivalarrival ,

    The conflation of personal belief with objective reality.

    When someone tells me they are religious, they are saying the voices in their heads are more important than the voices in their ears. They are saying the vision in their mind’s eye is more important than the vision in their eyeballs.

    When a schizophrenic tells us they are going to listen to the voices in their head, we should be worried. We should be worried even if their voices are currently telling them to be an upstanding member of society, because we don’t know what those voices will be saying tomorrow.

    kicksystem ,

    I couldnt agree more. I have totally underestimated how nutty religious people truly are. I used to think Christians are good neighbours and boring law abiding citizens, but when push comes to shove and you really need them it turns out that they are just nutcases who are very adept at playing the good neighbour role. At least that has been my experience. I just can’t trust adults who believe in fairy tales anymore.

    dlrht ,

    I totally get what you’re saying, but that’s not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy. I know many religious people who do not “listen to voices in their head” and it’s my belief that you’ve had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I’ve met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it’s unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me

    ProdigalFrog ,

    To be fair, a large amount of Christians, including many at the church I used to attend in my younger days, will often recommend they “Ask God for advice” on big or troubling decisions or issues in their life, and those people will then say “God told me to do X” after they asked God for help.

    So… I think there actually is a pretty fair amount of crazy religious types out there. The churches I’ve been to almost always had a big emphasis on getting to the point where you’re having a conversation with god, asking him for guidance, etc. I always interpreted that as being literal, and not a metaphor.

    Rivalarrival ,

    If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy.

    I did not mean to claim religious people are “crazy.” What I described is “faith”, but without the virtuous connotations commonly ascribed to that concept.

    Based on your comment, though, I would say I have accurately conveyed to you my state of mind upon hearing an individual proudly portray themselves as “religious” or “spiritual”. It is profoundly disturbing to hear someone readily admit a belief that their thoughts supersede reality.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    I find the comparison between religion and schizophrenia to be a little over the top. There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.

    Religious beliefs don’t inherently impair your ability to function. And clearly they have some emotional function or value given that peoples around the world created their own unique religions without fail.

    I really don’t see why you care so much about what people believe as long as their beliefs aren’t hurting anyone else. You are creating a problem where there is none.

    Rivalarrival ,

    There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.

    I would argue the former is the more worrying of the two. We all know not to trust the schizophrenic.

    But religious people aren’t just saying “God Bless You” when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.

    You are creating a problem where there is none.

    Any suggestion that there isn’t a problem is demonstrably false, and your claim that I am creating the problem is gaslighting. I’m not going to waste a bunch of time pointing at a bunch of lesser religiously-supported evils to prove it. I’m just going to take them as read, and skip to the end: religious zealots fly planes into buildings.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    But religious people aren’t just saying “God Bless You” when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.

    Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices. Its almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.

    Your justification for distrusting all religious people is a small minority of Christians and Muslims. Grow up and treat people like people

    Rivalarrival , (edited )

    Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices.

    Where did you get that idea? I don’t believe that is a valid conclusion raising from my arguments.

    It’s almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.

    My “anger at a very broad concept” should have been a clue that those specific harmful practices I mentioned were exemplar, and not an exhaustive list. Further examples could be drawn from every organized religion, as well as from any and all individual “spiritual” beliefs.

    No, my distrust of religious people is not based solely on those few examples of harm that I have presented, but on the underlying philosophical model, which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation. This is a “content of character” question, not a condemnation of specific religions.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation.

    This is an oversimplification of religion. There is a difference between someone’s religious beliefs, and how they approach logic in a real world situation. A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what. They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion. If they aren’t capable of this, then I agree its a problem. But its not a problem with religion, its a problem with the person.

    So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.

    And no, it is not gaslighting to point out why you are wrong about something. That’s a ridiculous tactic to avoid the tiniest bit of self reflection.

    Rivalarrival ,

    So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.

    None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.

    This is an oversimplification of religion.

    It is the fundamental basis of religion. The common denominator. The sine qua non: the component without which the philosophical model in question could not be reasonably described as religious.

    A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what

    Conceded.

    They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion.

    The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact. In declaring themselves religious, they indicate that there are certain circumstances where they intend to do just that.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.

    From what I can gather, it effectively is your argument. You dislike that people believe things that are not supported with evidence. I do not personally think it matters because they gain value from it and do not harm others in the process. What am I missing?

    The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact.

    I can’t disagree with that, but I just don’t see why it matters so much. If they seriously gain that much value from believing something, then let them.

    Rivalarrival ,

    and do not harm others in the process.

    I have presented no arguments suggesting they are harmless. I have not accepted your premise that they cause no harm. Indeed, I have provided a few examples of common, relatively minor harms, as well as references to the 9/11 attacks as non-exhaustive examples.

    You acknowledged these harms when you strawmanned my position. You can’t rationally claim that no such harms exist, when you have directly acknowledged they do.

    We can disagree on the prevalence of such harms: you have indicated a belief they are rare, and I have refused to waste my time producing an exhaustive list.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    You say your problem is that they believe things that are unsupported. Is that all, or do you dislike that because you think it leads to practices you don’t like?

    Such things do of course exist, but they don’t constitute the dislike for all religion. Religious beliefs differ wildly and it makes little sense to denounce all of them because some cause problems.

    Earlier you said that it wasn’t any specific practices that caused you to dislike religion. So, I focused on your problem just with the unsupported beliefs. Now you again bring up specific practices you don’t like.

    I don’t understand what you are even trying to say at this point.

    Rivalarrival ,

    Faith is a disease. In the faithful who aren’t currently hurting anyone, the disease is dormant. They are still infected, and given the right set of circumstances, they will cause harm. A particular variety of the faithful were not putting people at risk, until COVID came around and their faithful infections came to be known as “antivax” and “antimask”.

    Trying to stop the “specific practices” without inoculating against faith is like trying to stop the spread of typhoid without innoculating Mary Mallon against the disease. The faithful are the cause and carriers, regardless of whether they are currently showing symptoms.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    This makes slightly more sense to me although it is painfully overdramatic.

    I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm. As far as I am aware, a religious person is not any more of a ticking time bomb than anyone else.

    Blaming religion for these problems without tackling the underlying psychological issues is not going to help in any meaningful way. You just spread more hate and make the world a worse place, instead of approaching the situation with the slightest bit of empathy.

    I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do. Its not a characteristic of religion or the lack thereof, its a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.

    If you care so much about these problems, then recognize that the world is not so black and white that you can always find an idea to make your enemy no matter the circumstances. The way to fix these problems is not to alienate massive groups of people because you think they might become bad one day. That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.

    Rivalarrival ,

    I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm.

    Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality. The faithful merely need to imagine the existence of their own triggers.

    It’s a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.

    I do not concede that this is a symptom of mental illness. What I am talking about is an error in judgment, not a defect in the ability to reason.

    I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do.

    I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”? If so, I would likely have the same criticism.

    That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.

    Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”. I did once use the word “anger” in a description of my position, but I was directly quoting you at the time. You have inserted quite a lot of emotive concepts on my behalf that I have not actually expressed. I will renew my claims of “strawmen” and “gaslighting”.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality.

    No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.

    That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them. It is very possible to have incorrect reasoning without being religious.

    The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general. Everyone has justified a belief with bad logic because its too difficult to admit you are wrong. I’ve done it and still occasionally catch myself doing it. I believe you’re doing it right now, although I’ll admit I don’t know you well enough to know for sure. I’m guessing you had some negative experience with religion and now justify your distaste for it by claiming religious people are more prone to doing horrible things.

    I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”?

    Yes, the only difference is that their bad reasoning is not religious in nature. That’s why your problem should be people that do that, not religious people. They are not related.

    Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”.

    Here I was using hate to refer to the examples you gave like anti vaccine and anti mask people. I’m assuming you do hate that, as you should.

    Rivalarrival , (edited )

    No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.

    Remember what “faith” means in this context: the conflation of personal belief with objective reality. The act of “Justify[ing] any belief” is an act of “faith”.

    That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them.

    That is how certain people work, not all people. You have identified a set of people who “conflate their personal beliefs with objective reality”.

    The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general.

    I don’t think so, but let’s check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement? For example, x=1+2*3. Is the person who gets “7” mentally healthy? Is the person who gets “9” mentally unhealthy? What of the 3-year-old, who has not yet been taught numbers, and scribbles a stick image of a cat on the sheet?

    An individual who does not comprehend the meaning of PEMDAS/BEDMAS is still capable of rational thought. The lack of knowledge will lead them to a fallacious conclusion, but their process of reaching that conclusion is still rational.

    A deliberate refusal to accept and follow PEMDAS/BEDMAS rules is an error, but is not an indication of mental illness.

    The knowledge that individual belief must be subordinate to objective reality is a philosophical model that not everyone has learned, but ignorance of that philosophy is certainly not indicative of a mental health condition.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    That is how certain people work, not all people.

    No. It is literally a function of the human brain. www.healthline.com/health/stress/amygdala-hijack#… Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.

    I don’t think so, but let’s check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement?

    That is simple incorrect logic. What I’m talking about is emotions overriding logic.

    Having faith in a religion is very different from justifying emotional reactions with bad logic. You are conflating your personal belief that they are the same with objective reality.

    Everyone conflates personal belief with objective reality to varying degrees. A mentally healthy person can process their emotions well and recognize when they do so most of the time. A mentally unhealthy person will not recognize it because of their lack of emotional intelligence.

    Again, I am not talking about a clinical condition that inhibits clear logic. I’m talking about the ability to process your emotions in a healthy way.

    Rivalarrival ,

    Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.

    From your link, emphasis mine:

    An amygdala hijack is an automatic response. Your body takes action without any conscious input from you.

    “Belief” is a “conscious input.” Conflating belief with objective reality is a conscious act, as is “declaration of an individual’s religiosity”. “Philosophy” is a consciously-developed worldview. As an unconscious response, “Amygdala hijack” is well outside the scope of these conscious, deliberate acts.

    I have confined the scope of my discussion to the realm of consciousness, as it is only within this realm that we are capable of deliberate action. The unconscious realm does not interest me.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    Yes, you do not consciously make the decision to give up rational thought to emotion. This does not detract from my argument.

    Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don’t see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don’t allow it.

    Even outside of this specific function, neocortex activity is inversely correlated with amygdala activity. The more emotionally attached to a belief they are, the more difficult it is to stop believing it.

    I don’t see how you can just ignore this and pretend it has nothing to do with our conversation. It is literally the entire cause of the problems you’ve mentioned.

    Rivalarrival , (edited )

    Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don’t see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don’t allow it.

    I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision, and you are ignoring their emotional response to their own rationalization.

    There’s a video floating around of a guy who instinctively reacted to a threat by hiding behind his significant other. He reacted in fear. Now comes the rationalization phase: He tries to understand the act he instinctively performed. Rationalization is the act of applying his philosophical model to his actions. He evaluates his behavior against the expectations of his model.

    He could subscribe to a philosophical model where the sanctity of his body is greater than that of hers, in which case he could rationalize that his actions were good and proper. (He would then experience the emotion of “pride” that he followed his philosophical model correctly.)

    He could subscribe to a philosophical model where he is expected to protect other people from harm. He would then rationalize that his actions were improper. (He would then experience the emotion of “shame” for falling short of his idealizes principles.)

    (It is important to note that we are talking about a fraction of a second between the unconscious act and the rationalization of that act: the actor is feeling “pride” or “shame” at his action before his significant other has even realized what he has done. His initial, instantaneous reaction may not be controllable by his philosophical model. He might initially flinch behind her in fear, realize his error, and move to shield her from harm. Or, he might deliberately abandon her, and seek better protection from the perceived threat by fleeing. The point is that within fractions of a second, his actions are being influenced by his philosophical model. The “automatic response” you are talking stops being relevant as soon as this has occurred, and the philosophical model becomes the driving factor.)

    In both cases, the initial act is identical, sparked by an unconscious, unintentional process. “Amygdala hijacking” may, indeed, be responsible for this initial act, but it is not responsible for the differing effects. The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor. Philosophy plays a big part in driving emotion.

    I am uninterested in discussing the conditions that are, by definition, outside of the will and control of the individual. My interest here extends only to those things we can consciously affect.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor.

    The outcome is whatever avoids the feeling of shame, unless the person is emotionally intelligent enough to recognize it happening. It absolutely can and will affect your logic.

    The response is not just to physical threats, it is trying to avoid negative emotions. That may be the shame from recognizing your actions, or realizing your belief is illogical.

    I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision

    Emotion is the initial decision. The rationalizations are just an attempt to pretend is reasonable.

    Rivalarrival ,

    Do you have any relevant issues to add, or shall we conclude our discussion?

    sanpedropeddler ,

    That’s what I was just doing, but I guess I’ll expand upon it.

    Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.

    They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren’t in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.

    There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you’ve given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.

    To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you’ve mentioned is this unconscious process.

    A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.

    When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

    I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.

    Rivalarrival ,

    Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief?

    That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses. By definition, they are not controllable. There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

    The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy. We can’t affect the immediate response, but we can affect the rationalization process by focusing on a different philosophical model.

    A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss. A philosophy that rejects this mitigates your issues.

    When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

    I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation,

    Your condescending tone aside, that is correct. You are diverting us away from a path of consciously affecting behavior and mindsets, and toward a path that, by definition, we cannot. You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road; I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

    There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can’t affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

    That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses.

    It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.

    The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy.

    Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.

    A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss

    No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That’s why its important to discuss them.

    You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road

    It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

    I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

    You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.

    Rivalarrival ,

    Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

    “Emotions” are the unconscious responses. “Emotional awareness” is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model against which to evaluate the emotional reaction. You are restating my arguments.

    The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion

    Rejected. Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

    The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

    It seems important that you be right. I have already conceded that I have nothing to add to that aspect of the conversation. You won.

    Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

    sanpedropeddler ,

    Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model in which to evaluate the emotional reaction.

    No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.

    Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

    This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.

    It seems important that you be right.

    Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.

    Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

    I’m not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should’ve expected as much anyway, given that I’m arguing with people on the internet.

    Rivalarrival ,

    hateful nonsense

    Rejected, with my previous arguments. Strawman, gaslighting, ad hominem.

    Nothing else you have said furthers the discussion.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    The discussion is apparently over now because you won’t continue it. But that doesn’t stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.

    We’ve had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can’t misrepresent your argument when I’m not even actually representing it. I’m just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.

    Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.

    I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that’s about it. If you are referring specifically to the “hateful nonsense” part, that’s again just a description of your belief.

    Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.

    Hadriscus ,

    That’s actually a little frightening, please refrain from making such blanket statements like this one. Surely a part of you must know this is wrong

    kicksystem ,

    I couldn’t agree more with the statement made. People who believe in fairy tales can’t be fully trusted.

    Hadriscus ,

    Well, that’s very short-sighted and factually incorrect. I wish you meet more people and your outlook changes

    kicksystem ,

    I think it is somewhat hard to change my outlook at this point. My reasoning is that truly devout religious people have been infected with a mind virus. They may be nice people or pretend to be nice people, but there is also the mind virus, which is ultimately not trust worthy. In general, if hard decisions need to be made by a third party that potentially have a big impact on my life I’d not fully trust a religious person.

    In daily life I am very friendly with a bunch of religious people, but I mistrust the religious part of them.

    abort_christian_babies ,

    Religion is a mass delusion.

    Not a fan.

    Mirror_I_rorrIMG ,

    Name checks out.

    z500 ,
    @z500@startrek.website avatar

    Luckily there are no Christian babies to abort

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@kbin.social avatar

    Technically correct is the best kind of correct!

    abort_christian_babies ,

    You are the only person (so far) that’s understood this distinction in my name.

    It’s intended to be inflammatory but also to make the point you did.

    tigeruppercut ,

    Isn’t there at least one sect out there that believes in “Christian while a fetus”? There are so many denominations it’s hard to tell. I just had a quick look at the wiki page on original sin and at least the LDS people believe there’s no need for children under 8 to be baptized, though I’m not sure if that means the kids are LDS while younger than that (or fetal). There was a bit about some Quakers rejecting original sin as well, but again I’m not too sure of the implications.

    HuddaBudda ,
    @HuddaBudda@kbin.social avatar

    I am a Christian and am willing to throw myself into the ring.

    I think we deserve all the hate we are receiving and more. I am a firm believer of the separation of church and state, because I actually have studied the history of that phrase, and I know Christians wrote it in blood.

    Very little of that matters though, because the balance of power has been shifted too much into our area.

    We were supposed to minister to people, wash people's feet, love their neighbor.

    Christian's were supposed to be servants of our communities, and instead we became the rulers. Instead of showing compassion and understanding, we are tyrants with no passion, logic, or understanding for our fellow people.

    Just the love of Money. "In God we Trust"

    There will be a power shift back, and I don't think Christian's are ready for the blow-back. But I will say, we will deserve it, for we have become vile tyrants.

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    Moore [a former Evangelical leader] told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
    “What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
    Moore said he thinks a large part of the issue is how divisive U.S. politics are, which is now spilling over into the church. He pointed to how a lot of issues are “packaged in terms of existential threat,” leading to the belief among everyone, not just evangelical Christians, that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”
    https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
    ― Mahatma Gandhi

    saturnonice ,

    this is insane

    Honytawk ,

    Best response would be to say they might just not be Christian enough

    Drivebyhaiku ,

    I personally hope Christians use the blowback as a way to reconnect to the core principles of their faith and reflect on the precepts of radical kindness at the core of Jesus’s teachings. I feel very fortunate that my family drifted wide from religion back in my Grandparents day. I grew up an outcast in my wider community but there was never any question we were loved.

    A lot of people who joined our open family did so with a lot of baggage. Families that figured them as failures for not living up to expectations or who had some kind of isolating pain their religion told them they basically deserved. It made me feel rich in a way so many were poor just being cherished by my family for being unreservedly me. It becomes an armour that makes me very resilient.

    Being queer I see a lot of the people I know deal with this broken part of them, this rejection that who they are is not loved by the people for whom our society posits their natural attachments should entitle them love… and am able to be there for them. A lot of those who flee from religion do so as true refugees. They have to build from nothing. The reason queer communities are tight knit is because they realize that people can’t exist without some kind of family and if you don’t have one you make one from scratch.

    A lot of the people in this position don’t nessisarily hate the religion but they intimately know what it has taken from them. When your neighbours love you more than your family your neighbours become your family.

    HuddaBudda ,
    @HuddaBudda@kbin.social avatar

    Being queer I see a lot of the people I know deal with this broken part of them

    A lot of those who flee from religion do so as true refugees

    This is what I fear most. But it happens every day. Most Christian's paths don't start until they leave the church and most never do.

    The reason queer communities are tight knit is because they realize that people can’t exist without some kind of family and if you don’t have one you make one from scratch.

    I am glad to read this. Communities are a big part of growth. I think the modern Christianity lost that bit somewhere along the way.

    I personally hope Christians use the blowback as a way to reconnect to the core principles of their faith and reflect on the precepts of radical kindness at the core of Jesus’s teachings.

    They will, the problem is it will take time. I just wish we didn't have to hurt everyone seeking that growth.

    Drivebyhaiku ,

    In many ways queer culture is sort of a radically inclusive space informed by decades of response and radical fighting against the forces of trauma. Drag Queen’s have lineages of Mothers and Daughters, Drag Kings tend to form packs to perform. Queer events hold barbeques and brunches, create taverns and diners where queer culture is passed between generations as a way to keep old lessons alive and give people safe places to go to ask whatever they need. It is a community of outcasts who decided that the world needed less outcasts.

    Here in Vancouver the last time I went to a drag event the Queens were advising everyone to keep more cash on them because homeless people often could not access free places to cool down to keep them safe in extreme heat events. Radical inclusion and the willingness to see flawed people as humans is one of the queer community’s strengths. It’s often paired with a lot of black humour and silliness but the core of the thing sometimes make me think that but for the lack of emphasis on spiritual belief there’s a lot of underlying philosophy that Jesus probably wouldn’t be too upset about.

    calypsopub ,

    Fellow Christian here, well said! I am so sickened by Christmas who want to use the government to force their beliefs on everyone else.

    kromem , (edited )

    I mean, you threw yourself in here, so I feel this is fair game…

    Listen, while I certainly respect some of the concessions you are making here in acknowledging the issues with the broader issues of modern Christianity, at a very fundamental level the core beliefs are problematic for a modern society.

    My guess is that you believe a dead body came back to life and floated up into the sky.

    In part, I make this assumption because Paul effectively mandated this as a litmus test in 1 Cor 15 in response to Christians at the time who rejected that belief.

    So you believe that things outside the scope of what is naturally possible has occurred.

    This is then tied to a belief of inherent unworthiness such that without this event having occurred, you are somehow deserving of suffering and it is only through this event that you could have avoided such a fate.

    You were most likely fed these beliefs as a child - beliefs people in the first generation after Jesus weren’t even all that keen on - and you will likely continue to pass them along generationally.

    The entire time effectively ignoring that the version of Christianity which survived was simply the one that had successfully adapted beliefs in line with supporting authoritarianism of the Roman monarchy, of slavery, and of financing the organization out of the pockets of its members, etc - ideas that I’m skeptical you’d end up endorsing if they were positioned to you on their own, and are each beliefs that can be individually challenged on their connection to a historical Jesus in the first place.

    So the social exchange of even a “good Christianity” minus the worst parts of today’s oversteps is still one in which children are raised to believe in magic, in their inherent unworthiness without the religion, of continuing on outdated and obsolete social norms and practices, and on preserving ideas that benefit authoritarianism.

    Much as I think you’d probably agree it wouldn’t be good for people growing up in a world of science and technology to be indoctrinated with beliefs about Muhammad having been able to split the moon in half or a belief that the universe is in fact the dream of a giant turtle, beliefs that you yourself subscribe to happen to run counter to everything from an evidenced based approach to understanding the world and our place in it.

    Christian certainty in their beliefs led to suppression of ideas ranging from the notion matter was made up of indivisible parts (atomism) to the idea life that existed around us was not from intelligent design but simply based on what survived to reproduce and what did not - both ideas present and broadly discussed in Jesus’s day.

    With all due respect for the freedom to have faith in something, at a certain point faith should not be put on a pedestal over evidence backed evaluations and it is necessary to let go of the past in order to embrace the future.

    crystalmerchant ,

    I’ve heard about the “rise of the nones” for fucking years now. I’m in my mid 30s. When the fuck will this trend translate into policy reform

    OutlierBlue ,

    Have you looked at the age of the average politician? It’ll change when they all die of old age and someone sensible from the younger generation takes over.

    braxy29 ,

    my concern is that they seem to have indoctrinated or allied with enough young people that i’m no longer certain it will matter.

    FilthyShrooms ,

    When the all 80+ year olds in congress retire die out

    givesomefucks ,

    Yep.

    Doesn’t matter how religious voters are when the options are both hardcore Christian.

    Like, Biden not being actively anti-abortion was enough to get American bishops to start talking if they should try and get every Catholic church in America to refuse to give him communion.

    He’s still not really pro-abortion, and we’ll never really know if that’s because his incredibly organized church is against it, or if he just doesn’t care enough to push for codifying abortion rights.

    He’s the most high profile because he’s president, but lots of House Reps and Senators are in the same boat.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    The moment we start voting

    ComradeChairmanKGB ,
    @ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    For religious grifter owned by corporations number 1, or religious grifter owned by corporations number 2?

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    Rather cynical take.

    ComradeChairmanKGB ,
    @ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    I prefer the term realistic

    Peaty ,

    When the nones outnumber the religious which is still a while away.

    nickhammes ,

    Around the time the majority of our lawmakers learned about the Vietnam war in a history book.

    soycapitan451 ,

    Organising nones is like herding cats. The evangelicals do not get their power from their number. They vote uniformly and reliably, turning out for every primary, local, and federal election.

    We are a diverse bunch with diverse opinions.

    Chr0nos1 ,

    I’ve been a none for a bit now, and often find myself disagreeing with the opinions of others. I also tend to be more centrist in my political leanings, whereas a lot (obviously not all) of nones or atheists tend to lean left, or in some cases are extreme leftists. In my opinion, extreme leftists are as harmful to society as the extreme right, but that’s a pretty unpopular opinion online.

    Long story short, I agree with you on this.

    kromem ,

    The problem is that as moderate critical thinkers leave religious organizations the organizations are becoming more polarized by the foolhardy remnants which leads to large organizational efforts to do stupid nonsensical things.

    stolid_agnostic ,

    This is a question of attrition. Religiosity is dying out and so, in a sense, is neo-conservativism, and that’s why there is such a huge push to the right in many parts of the world. It’s the last desperate gasp of people who know that their time is up. They are doing everything they can to stop it from happening but it’s inevitable.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    I think the only thing we lose is community – I’m jealous that religious people automatically have that.

    The solution of course is trying to return to having neighborhood communities.

    cjthomp ,

    Join a bowling league.

    Do anything every week with the same group and you’ll establish that same community…but without the grifting and shaming.

    mechoman444 ,

    Exactly I started playing pool at a local hall right by my house. Great way of meeting new people.

    Getting out and doing stuff in public is a great way of communicating.

    DarthBueller ,

    Instructions unclear, now stuck in MLM organization with grifting and shaming. :D

    assassin_aragorn ,

    But I’m introverted and my hobbies are video games :c

    RepulsiveDog4415 ,

    10/10 can confirm though it was Friday Magic Night for me.

    dan1101 ,

    You’re outta your element Donnie!

    SourWeasel ,

    Sounds great, but the local bowling alley in my rural redneck town was just sold and converted to a community church. 🫤

    Honytawk ,

    Go bowl down the isle of that church.

    Not like they need it on any day except Sundays.

    SourWeasel ,

    Actually, I quite like the idea of secretly setting up some pins and rolling the ball down the aisle on a Sunday.

    Resonosity ,

    Love the idea here, but I wonder if there could be an alternative to religion/churches that still allows us to congregate and deliberate about meaningful, philosophical affairs that religion poked and prodded at.

    I know The Satanic Temple seeks to do this in a way, but I wonder if our universities and colleges held more opportunities to engage with the general public on meta/physics, epistemology, ethics, etc., topics also challenged by religion, we might fill the rational void people might be seeking.

    rrrurboatlibad ,

    Try Humanism. Find your local chapter. Its the community of “church” without the need for god(s)

    callouscomic ,

    I’m telling you from experience that their “community” is fake. The people are fake. Under the fake stuff that looks nice on the outside is a deep culture of judgment and shame and fear. It’s not any community I would ever want. Like family get together for family’s that hate each other but they fake it.

    To those who will try to tell me “well not ME or MY church.” I don’t care and I don’t believe you. I have been harmed too much too consistently by these groups.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Yeah I guess there’s an inherent danger with a community where going against groupthink is a sin

    Chr0nos1 ,

    Like posting an unpopular opinion on Reddit or Lemmy. You’ll get down voted to hell if your opinion differs from the majority in that sub.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    That’s just unpopular opinions, and I’ve made plenty of those before. It’s very different from doing something that my community thinks is a cosmic sin that will send me to hell.

    Vampiric_Luma ,
    @Vampiric_Luma@lemmy.ca avatar

    I’m struggling to see how it’s different. Could you iterate a bit more? I’m a bit slow but I like learning :(

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Of course. It’s the nature of the disagreement. And unpopular opinion about random topics is just an unpopular opinion. People will see me as an idiot, ignorant, or stupid. They may think I have questionable morals or priorities. But that’s it. I’m just another stupid person on the Internet. I can have some of these disagreements with friends where I have an unpopular opinion, but depending on the severity it’s inconsequential.

    With a sin though, I’ve done something that goes against God’s word and rules. If I don’t ask for forgiveness, I will be eternally punished for it. Disagreements here are disagreements on what God says, which is heresy.

    Does that make more sense?

    Mog_fanatic ,

    There are for sure exceptions to this. But by and large this is absolutely spot on in my experience. It feels like getting together with paid actors that are hired to be your friend or sell you sometime in the end sometimes.

    kshade ,
    @kshade@lemmy.world avatar

    Under the fake stuff that looks nice on the outside is a deep culture of judgment and shame and fear.

    Funny, that’s what Christianity seems to be mostly about anyway.

    Flax_vert ,

    Not really. Only God has a right to judge us.

    Resonosity ,

    The solution could be more rooted in philosophy too, but it’s been a long time, at least since the time of the Greeks or Romans, since we’ve had Schools dedicated to the deliberation of meta/physics, ethics, epistemology, etc.

    And I’m not talking about modern education here, the education that’s meant to bring up the youth and develop them into functioning adults. The Greek/Roman Schools to me seemed like places of conversation, debate, etc. that anyone could join (I know that philosophy was mostly restricted to the aristocracy in ancient times, but that would be the goal today).

    Maybe the answer is modern schools today, but with an effort to host local communities for thought discourse. Maybe it would look like wrapping together TED Talks with the minds of debates you see in New York that are like full blown events.

    And maybe universities do deliver this kind of activity for their community that I nor you have access to because they’re not near us. Dunno.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    I think another aspect to consider is that after the pandemic, multigenerational homes have become more common. There could be a really great sense of community in having a bunch of large families raise their children as a village.

    rainynight65 ,

    Ah yes, that sense of ‘community’ that only manifests when they all sit in their church, and vanishes the moment they all get back home.

    I get more of a sense of community out of my model railway forums and my live steam club.

    TheCynicalSaint ,

    They really don’t. I grew up Evangelical, trust me, community was the last thing on those people’s minds. Granted, I understand where you’re coming from; there should be more communal spaces that don’t have religion as a requirement.

    ohlaph ,

    I don’t mind organized religion. What I do hate is that religion pushing their beliefs onto everyone they meet, pushing their religion beliefs throughout school systems, etc. If religious can keep to themselves, I see it like yoga or CrossFit.

    Sir_Simon_Spamalot ,

    Clearly, you haven’t met crossfitters

    jose1324 ,

    Clearly you don’t own an airfryer

    Kernal64 ,

    Or an instapot!

    elucubra ,

    Or an ARCH user.

    Sir_Simon_Spamalot ,

    No, but my wife wants us to :(

    jose1324 ,

    Don’t give in. Just get a good oven for everything and it’s the same

    new_acct_who_dis ,

    Or a bidet

    Hadriscus ,

    Obviously you’re not a golfer

    cmhe ,

    IDK about equalizing religion and yoga. At minimum, the yoga exercises seem pretty useful for getting a flexible and healthy body, and (judeo-christian) religous ceremonies are mostly just a reason for people to get together, which many other activities can do as well.

    The positives that people get from religion are mostly about the feeling of being part of a community, with their own lore, rules, codex and ceremonies. Just like DnD groups, with the major difference that some members actually belief all of that stuff, which is spooky and dangerous, because that opens these people to all sorts of other crazy ideas.

    TheCee ,
    @TheCee@programming.dev avatar

    If religious can keep to themselves

    Since religions compete, that doesn’t sound feasible.

    Senuf ,

    Although all religions are useless and shouldn’t have any privilege, only to be practiced in their own spaces, I am aware that not all religions compete in a proselytistic way. I understand that, for example, Judaism doesn’t proselytise and that “converting” to Judaism is even a long and difficult process, which makes me think it is like discouraging conversion, in some way, by making it so uphill.

    TheCee ,
    @TheCee@programming.dev avatar

    Pretty sure you can be born into judaism, though. Chances are, it is even the default scenario with even semi-religious parents.

    That’s not “keeping to yourself” to me. That’s like passing the cigarettes to your kids.

    Senuf ,

    Yeah, I agree, to a certain point. Most Jewish people I know, though, aren’t religious at all but for following certain traditions that don’t even include eating kosher food. Of course that doesn’t include orthodox Jews, but I don’t know any.

    As for the training of it (“That’s not “keeping to yourself” to me. That’s like passing the cigarettes to your kids” and the “default scenario”), well, it’s the default upbringing in every family. Besides exceptions, conservative parents will raise conservative kids because that’s their growing environment, the same with more liberal ones, etc. That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing

    TheCee ,
    @TheCee@programming.dev avatar

    That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing

    I don’t see your point. How is brainwashing children ok when wololo-ing people is not? Even from an egocentric perspective, you have to live in a society.

    Senuf , (edited )

    I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall. Would you mind pointing at the part where I said so it or even implied so?

    What I said is that that isn’t proselytising. It’s a different concept to raise your kids in a certain way and to go to others who already have a different faith (or none) and try to convince them to convert.

    Of course, I know that everyone is born without any religion and by that account the limit is blurred, yet to raise a kid into one’s own faith and/or traditions is not the same as proselytising.

    As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

    Edit: word

    TheCee ,
    @TheCee@programming.dev avatar

    I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.

    Fair enough, you didn’t. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn’t seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.

    As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

    That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

    Senuf ,

    Apologies accepted, of course.

    That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

    On one hand, I agree. Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive. I mean, ultraorthodix Jews are as fanatical as your fellow Taliban or the right-wing Christians.

    Thanks for this exchange of opinions.

    TheCee ,
    @TheCee@programming.dev avatar

    Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.

    Yes, that’s what I’m counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.

    Senuf ,

    I agree.

    And your phrasing (italics are mine)

    ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution.

    was quite interesting. Was it an intended pun? It made me laugh.

    TheCee ,
    @TheCee@programming.dev avatar

    Was it an intended pun?

    Unfortunately, no.

    CADmonkey ,

    A crossfit trainer, an ex-marine, and a born-again christian all walk into a bar.

    We know that, because they won’t stop telling everyone.

    zalgotext ,

    I’m surprised this comment has lasted 6 hours without anyone saying “there’s no such thing as an ex-marine”

    Hadriscus ,

    why ?

    Syringe ,

    Because SEMPER FI !!! OOORAH!!

    CADmonkey ,

    I, too, am disappointed by the lack of offended ex-marine comments.

    stolid_agnostic ,

    Unfortunately you can’t have religion without people trying to evangelize. It’s part of the problem.

    sanpedropeddler ,

    But… you can. It already exists

    MetalJewSolid ,

    its like they dont realize that christianity isn’t the only religion in the world

    cogman ,

    Yeah, sort of funny. A good number of religions are hard to convert to (or don’t take converts). Partially because religion in human history has been a tool for a community to distinguish why they are better than outsiders. A lot of older religions died from this exclusivity.

    Hadriscus ,

    That’s not correct. Where I live, religion is intertwined with daily life and yet nobody ever tried to talk me into anything

    CileTheSane ,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    There’s a world of difference between “you should join my religion, we don’t eat fish” and “my religion says you can’t eat fish.”

    nBodyProblem ,

    Agreed

    Atheism and science are also a type of religious belief. Ultimately, as long as someone isn’t hurting anyone else or trying to force their beliefs on others, I don’t care what they believe.

    HikingVet ,

    Could you expand your thoughts on this?

    I’m always curious when this is said as to what is meant when Atheism and science are called religious.

    Soggy ,

    “ThEy AlL rEqUiRe FaItH”

    It’s a gross misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation.

    HikingVet ,

    Yeah, that’s the standard line they give.

    I find it’s usually intentional misrepresentation.

    nBodyProblem ,

    Sure. To be clear, I’m an engineer and an atheist so I don’t mean it to attack either Athiesm or science by any means.

    To start with, we cannot get true knowledge of the world outside ourselves by sensory perception alone. Rather, the way we interpret our sensory inputs is by applying it to some metaphysical framework of how we believe the outside world works.

    As a small example, Descartes famously brought up analogy of a melting candle. A totally naive person being born into existence would see melted wax and hardened wax as two different substances. Sensory perception alone would lie to this person. Only by interpreting it through this metaphysical framework do we come to the conclusion that melted wax and hardened wax are the same thing at different temperatures.

    This extends to deeper concepts that we can’t directly explain by our experience alone. At some point we stop using our own direct experience and expand our metaphysical framework using something else.

    The thing that springs from that “something else” is religion, and in many instances it doesn’t necessarily encompass a concept of divinity or worship. In abrahamic religions it is the Judeo-Christian god. In Daoism it’s the belief in the Dao, an unexplainable force tied to the events of the natural world. In science it’s belief in the scientific method’s ability to produce objective truth with sufficient cooperation and experimentation. They’re all models of the outside world that stem from something beyond a single individuals sensory perception.

    lingh0e ,

    Spiritual faith and faith in the scientific method are not the same.

    Scientific knowledge is SUPPOSED to be challenged and changed as we gain new information. Religious faith is expected to be accepted without question and regardless of information.

    nBodyProblem ,

    Spiritual faith and faith in the scientific method are not the same.

    They’re both belief systems pertaining to knowledge of the universe beyond your immediate perception

    Scientific knowledge is SUPPOSED to be challenged and changed as we gain new information.

    Of course. However, the central tenet of science doesn’t rely on scientific knowledge but the scientific method itself and it’s assumed power to find objective truth. Any questions about the viability of the scientific method to find objective truth tend to be aggressively rejected.

    Religious faith is expected to be accepted without question and regardless of information.

    This isn’t necessarily true. There are some religions that have no authoritative text, central authority, or official dogma; they encourage new perspectives in the nature of the universe. Daoism is one.

    Hadriscus ,

    lmao

    HawlSera ,

    Atheism? Sure some New Atheist branches practice it like a faith

    Science? It’s a tool for measuring things… it is about as much of a religion as a ruler

    nBodyProblem ,

    Science? It’s a tool for measuring things… it is about as much of a religion as a ruler

    It’s not, it’s a system that seeks to understand our world at a deeper level and predict future events.

    It’s funny you mention that, though, because it brings up one of the difficulties in science. Measurements we base our scientific theories on rely on instruments, most of which themselves rely on other theories for reliable operation and interpretation of data.

    One philosopher of science famously brought up the analogy of a surveyor who doesn’t understand magnetism. He attempts to use a compass as a surveying tool near some hidden source of magnetic field. Without understanding of the underlying principles of magnetism and local magnetic field, he would assume the compass unfailingly points north and the resulting measurements of the local geography would be wrong. Those flawed measurements might then be used by geologists, leading to the development of theories supported by flawed data.

    There is always a degree of uncertainty in the instruments we use to develop and test our hypotheses because there is no such thing as certain knowledge in science. However, at some point we simply put faith in the scientific method and presume that our underlying theories are sufficiently accurate for our purposes and proceed accordingly.

    lingh0e ,

    Your surveyor story sounds like something a christian apologist would say, or someone who doesn’t know the difference between science and religion.

    Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say “put his faith in his instruments”, it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.

    nBodyProblem ,

    Do you not understand what a thought experiment is? It’s an exaggerated example to better illustrate a concept, in this case the concept that reliable calibration and use of instruments is itself based on some underlying theory of operation.

    Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say “put his faith in his instruments”, it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.

    If it helps you understand the concept, imagine that the source of error is very weak, only disturbing the compass by a few degrees at any given location.

    HawlSera ,

    Doubt

    Soggy ,

    I mind the normalization of magical thinking. It’s the same reason I bristle at astrology and tarot and luck charms.

    kicksystem ,

    And that has a whole bunch of negative consequences, because these people won’t listen to reason if it inconveniences them

    mojo ,

    All I want is separation of church and state, like it’s supposed to be.

    Kage520 ,

    Even according to Jesus

    KingThrillgore ,
    @KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

    Jesus is a real G compared to supply side right wing Jesus. If he ever does return, we’ll kill him again because he won’t be relatable to the rich.

    kromem ,

    Even if that dude were to return, he’d take one look at the modern day Pharisees his followers have become and think of the adage “burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me” and keep his mouth shut this time around.

    It turns out that no, in fact there was no one with two good ears in the crowd after all, and only a fool would make that mistake twice.

    rainynight65 ,

    If Jesus ever does come back, he won’t last ten minutes before they nail him to the cross again. Today’s Christianity is so far out of step with his supposed teachings, they might as well exist in different universes.

    stewie3128 ,

    Or, you know, we could just ditch the church part entirely. Playing pretend about your favorite book is okay as a hobby I guess, but it doesn’t deserve government sanction or protection.

    I say this as someone who went to religious school until 9th grade, and was deeply involved in church through 12th grade.

    Read charitably, the Christian Bible is a bunch of fantasy role-playing bullshit. Read realistically, anything not attributed directly to Jesus is a bunch of pedantic repressive bullshit, with the occasional nice axiom thrown in (“grey hair is the splendor of the old” etc). The Apostle Paul, for example, was the original TCOT, and would be a megachurch pastor today. He just loved telling everyone how to live.

    Jesus - if he actually existed - went into temples with a whip and literally started flipping tables. Today, he’d be exiled from the church his followers founded because he’s too “liberal” and “weak.”

    Religion, and in particular the vast cult of that is American Evangelical Christianity, has no place in the modern world. If there is a God, they only take us further from him. It’s a tax-free business built on graft and hatred, which they relabel as “tolerance” and “love.”

    Cut off the tax-exempt status of any church or ministry that speaks to a political end (e.g. “Julie Green Ministries”). If they’re really that altruistic and pure of heart with clarity of purpose, it shouldn’t stop their mission.

    There is nothing special about expert knowledge in the fantasy world of the 1st and 2nd centuries. Theology is strictly a study of invented bullshit, with the aim of subjugating others. Even majoring in Harry Potter or the Star Wars Expanded Universe would be of greater benefit to society.

    Religion has no positive use.

    IchNichtenLichten ,
    @IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

    “Never do business with a religious son-of-a-bitch. His word ain’t worth a shit – not with the Good Lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal.”

    ― William S. Burroughs

    TheMadnessKing , (edited )

    I really cant wrap my head that religion still exist in this age. Like we have mass destruction weapons, rockets that go beyond earth, have proof of how vast the universe is and then what we fight over is how some God has dictated our life to be.

    TopRamenBinLaden ,

    It’s so dumb and pretentious. Like nobody knows why we’re here, if there is a creator or not, what happens when we die, etc. Religious people act like they really have the answers to these when they are so comically wrong and fooled by people pulling stuff out of their ass.

    Then, on top of that, to deny all of the things we have actually figured out about our universe and our place in it, the things we have actually observed. It’s a plague on humanity, stifling our progress.

    TheMadnessKing ,

    Yes. Exactly 💯.

    If the god was so powerful, where was he during CoVID? Why didnt the holy water treat COVID?

    electrogamerman ,

    “GoD aCtS iN mIsTiRiOuS wAyS”

    aka: Sky daddy doesn’t exist.

    ThePenitentOne ,

    The only purpose religion serves is copium for people who can't face reality/don't want to think, and exploitation of power. If God existed and gave a shit, it would be clear, but it's so obviously man-made to anyone who wasn't brainwashed to be religious.

    kromem ,

    Every time I think about the fact that the belief that a dead body came back to life, floated up into the sky, and is expected to float back down at the end of the world isn’t considered to be a psychotic delusion because it’s so commonplace as to be normative I feel like I’m on crazy pills.

    How?

    How the heck do we live in an age of measuring how long it takes for light to cross a hydrogen atom, of seeing the complete observable universe, of building our own virtual universes - and yet intelligent people who are aware of or even involved in such efforts genuinely think magic is real?

    I get that there’s a lot of people who just don’t have a good grasp on reality and think lizards running world governments is somehow a probable explanation for the state of things, but the part that destroys a bit of my soul is seeing people who clearly should know better but don’t.

    How are we supposed to collectively solve real problems when so many are unwilling to come face to face with what is actually real?

    TheMadnessKing ,

    Yup. Like how we tell kids there are no ghosts, we should tell me there is no God.

    kromem ,

    Well, at very least “there’s no objective evidence for either ghosts or God.”

    kicksystem ,

    100%.

    I have that same problem with meat eaters too. How is it possible that we know we are brutally mass breeding and killing animals for food we don’t need, is fucking up the planet and isn’t all that healthy either, while at the same time also pretending to be civilized human beings that care about animals and the climare. And every time I raise the issue people make the dumbest excuses I have heard a thousand times…

    People, once brainwashed into a way of thinking and behaving, can just be really hard to change even if you have all the arguments on your side.

    rainynight65 ,

    I have the same problem with monarchy. The only thing that disturbs me more than the existence of royals with their archaic rituals and inbred lines of succession is the fact that there are so many people who love that shit.

    Monarchies are also deeply intertwined with religion, which makes it extra problematic.

    JigglySackles ,

    When your congregation are loud bigots, racists, and assholes, or when your clergy fuck kids and cover it up, or when the religion as a whole surpresses or hates certain genders or sexualities… This is not a surprising trend at all to anyone reasonable.

    Cold_Brew_Enema ,

    Religion is cancer.

    Zombiepirate ,
    @Zombiepirate@lemmy.world avatar

    I read a really interesting book called How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion, and the author made some very interesting points.

    It takes a seismic change in perspectives to change closely-held beliefs that are intertwined with our identities. I grew up as a devout Christian in an extremely conservative protestent young-earth-creationist denomination. I spent my Sundays and Wednesdays listening to the values preached from the pulpit: love, humility, repentance, understanding, protecting the vulnerable, meekness, charity, and unconditional love.

    However, these same people when outside of church would spew tirades about “the gays”, how poor people are just lazy, and how prayer wasn’t allowed in school anymore. The love that was exalted above all other values on Sunday was just a platitude to give cover to hateful grievance.

    And that was almost thirty years ago; they’ve only gotten worse. That’s why people are abandoning religion in droves. The values that they sell are not aligned with the actual values of their congregants. Like the old Jim Croce song, their philosophy is “Let him live in freedom - if he lives like me.”

    Furthermore, losing one’s religion nowadays is not the social exile it once was. People have support structures outside of organized religion. It’s one of the reasons that Evangelical churches are so against a social safety net: it keeps the excommunicated from crawling back.

    aesthelete ,

    People have support structures outside of organized religion.

    I agree with you overall, but do not agree with this point. There are very few non-commercial support structures in America for adults outside of organized religion, and even some of them (e.g. AA) are somewhat religious in nature.

    PhlubbaDubba ,

    I think they meant outside friends and family

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •