Rationalizing faith.

[atrib]

That's smarmy and unhealthy.

I hope you are referring to the practice of filling a post with the worst invective and stereotyping filth you can think of to describe anyone who believes differently than you, then dubiously claiming the moral high ground.

I only do that when it comes to describing Alabama fans, because I went to school at Auburn.

 

[Politesse]

That's smarmy and unhealthy.

I hope you are referring to the practice of filling a post with the worst invective and stereotyping filth you can think of to describe anyone who believes differently than you, then dubiously claiming the moral high ground.

I only do that when it comes to describing Alabama fans, because I went to school at Auburn.

I understand. My partner went to U of M, and I have learned that it is not safe to bring up Ohio in conversation.

 

[steve_bank]

We take part because we are all a part of society and we are all effected by the beliefs of others as expressed in their attitudes and their actions. Pity it isn't just Tea and Scones.

No, YOU are of that part of society that is godless and wicked, that part that is separate from the morally superior social club... oops, I meant separate from God.

Christianity is fundamentally tribalist and will always serve as a source of conflict in any society. Like every authoritarian cult, the idea is that society should be entirely under the domain of the religion and then all will be lovely and peaceful for everyone. Until then, "peace" is for lost souls who worship themselves and are blind to God's love while Christian soldiers have much work to do in the war against evil.

Tribalist?

The old expression is 'that is rich'.

Back in the day did you ever go to a Grateful Dead concert? The term was Dead Heads for their followers. The Bob Dylan tribe?

Atheism depending on the group can be as tribal as anything.

Modern music is tribalism in the extreme. Pro sports. Politics. Ethnic groups. It is irrational to call out religion as a singular 'evil'.

I participate here because the adessive and intrusive Christians try to impose beliefs through politics enacted in laws. I grew up in New England with Blue Laws. No major business on Sunday and no alcohol sales in stores. Sodomy laws that were not just applied to gays but to heteros as well.

Right now I am far more worried about the increasingly secular processive assaults' on free speech.

My philosophy is your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose, an old saying. Believe, associate, and express as you like. Just don't intrude with it on my life.

Mutual tolerance to ensure mutual existence. I don't want to suppress religion anymore than ET believers.

Like all human behavior there are positives and negatives to relgion.

 

[southernhybrid]

Let us be clear. I am not criticizing "atheists". I am criticizing you. Your supposedly superior "label" means nothing to me, or to any thinking person. Your words and conduct are your own choices.

I haven't read this entire thread, but have you considered that some of us atheists have been injured either from our religious upbringing or by the way we are treated when we are open about our atheism.

I'm one of the lucky ones who was able to walk away from evangelical Christianity with very little damage. But, I have been abused by self righteous coworkers in the distant past, who condemned me, and caused division in the work place, which eventually made me ask for a transfer to another office, with a much longer commute from home. Luckily, the Christians in that office were kind, and appreciative of my work, as I was a very fast efficient worker, always ready to help my peers. I'm long over the way I've been treated, but I'm a fiesty first born who had a very close relationship with my evangelical mother, who despite her crazy beliefs, finally came to the conclusion that her first born daughter wasn't going to hell. I always saw my mother as a victim of the emotional indoctrination that she received when I was about 3 years old.

Atheists are one of the most despised, misunderstood minorities in the US. We are expected to remain in the closet, although more of us are coming out and we are growing in numbers. Certainly, you of all people can understand what it's like feeling hesitant to reveal something about yourself that might be judged and condemned by some conservative Christians?

We all react to the influences that made us who we are. I value AF's contributions. I know she gets angry sometimes. She put that right in her name as a warning. She is also a decent compassionate person with a wonderful sense of humor. I know she doesn't need me to defend her, but I can't help myself.

I know I'm being a bitch by saying this, but good liberal Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek, not to judge.....You know.....all those idealistic nice Jesus things that most Christians seem to ignore these days.

Btw, I like you both. I don't care that you feel the need to have some religion in your life. Mythology is interesting and meaningful to some people. I don't care that AF needs to tell you how she feels about Christian beliefs. As for me, I have learned to tolerate Christianity, for the most part, but if I'm really honest, I have no idea how any intelligent person can take any religious mythology as fact.

Yes. Plenty of smart folks do believe in gods and myths. Just the other day, a very intelligent, charming PA told me that it was amazing how "The Lord" had placed my neighbor and I next door to each other. Really? I wanted to say, do you really believe that shit? Do you honestly believe that a god decided to put two retired nurses next door to each other?

Instead, I was silent, but mildly disappointed that a medical professional still assumes that all of her patients believe in the Lord! That might sound very trivial to you, but when it constantly surrounds you on a daily basis, sometimes you just want to be honest and say to the other person, "What the fuck did you just say"? Irl, we usually hold our tongues. Here, is one of the few places where we can vent or let it out a bit.

I sure can rant if I try.

Then you should understand what its like to read an entire thread dedicated to saying the most vile things imaginable about religious people and, at best, pathologizing any dissent against atheist thinking as a form of mental illness. I do think it's best when people get along and tolerate their differences. I do not believe that giving free reign to bigotry is somehow the path to eliminating it. This kind of nonsense drives people further apart, not closer together. If you don't like religious fundamentalism, the most rational course of action, to my way of seeing things, is to reject it. Not to copy their style, with some of the labels switched but the core message of conformity-or-violence unchanged. That's just stoking the fire, and making religious or non-religious freedom difficult to reach in civil society. Do you really think young atheists are made safer by angry, unthinking anti-Christian polemics? Conversation heals. Argument does not.

Never in a million years woiuld I think to call you a "bitch"; I have always known you to a thoughtful, caring, compassionate human being. If you think I'm wandering into hypocrisy territory, you should say so, and I'll take that opinion seriously. But as you have said, my life experiences have also given me insight into human communication and the plight of minority status. And I haven't, at least at this point in my life, ever seen anything to make me think that "tolerating intolerance" leads to a net increase in tolerance. I would still be in the closet, if I believed that this were so. And I will tell you this, I did not like the closet. Is it tempting to strike back in kind at the people you see as having held the door closed? Yes. Of course it is. But it stacks up the casualties. If your aim is poor, you end up venting that rage on people who had nothing whatsoever to do with your situation -- and thus creating new enemies all around you where friendships would otherwise have been possible.

I said I didn't read the entire thread, so maybe I misunderstood. I didn't take most of the comments as criticisms of Christians per se, but rather as criticisms of the beliefs of Christians. Just like atheists, Christians are a diverse group. Many are kind, usually reasonable people who don't judge others, but those who hold the most conservative views often tend to be self righteous hypocrites, which was why I was a bit surprised to see you, who I've never thought of as one of the nasty ones, come across as harsh towards someone who has often stated how she feels about religion.

I said I was being a bitch because I did think it was a little mean to point out what might be perceived as hypocrisy. I don't like to be so judgmental, which is why I was insulting myself as well as you.

And just like it's true that not all Christians judge those outside their group harshly, atheists are an extremely diverse group. Some even identify as atheist Christians, while others believe that religion is the cause of all of the world's ills. I see religion as I see all man made mythology or if you prefer, ideology. It has both positive and negative elements. When it becomes extreme, like it does in the fundamentalist versions, it's a very hateful, potentially harmful ideology.

But, yeah. It would be best if we could discuss these things without getting too emotional. At least half of my friends are Christians. I love them and they return that love to me. All but one knows I"m an atheist, but she is a person who has struggled with poverty all of her life, and her religious beliefs offer her a lot of comfort. I seriously doubt she would think I'm going to hell if I outed myself. I've just never seen the necessity to do that.

Now, we just need a chorus of Ray Charles singing, "Just a Little Bit of Love". . If only...........

 

[Politesse]

Then you should understand what its like to read an entire thread dedicated to saying the most vile things imaginable about religious people and, at best, pathologizing any dissent against atheist thinking as a form of mental illness. I do think it's best when people get along and tolerate their differences. I do not believe that giving free reign to bigotry is somehow the path to eliminating it. This kind of nonsense drives people further apart, not closer together. If you don't like religious fundamentalism, the most rational course of action, to my way of seeing things, is to reject it. Not to copy their style, with some of the labels switched but the core message of conformity-or-violence unchanged. That's just stoking the fire, and making religious or non-religious freedom difficult to reach in civil society. Do you really think young atheists are made safer by angry, unthinking anti-Christian polemics? Conversation heals. Argument does not.

Never in a million years woiuld I think to call you a "bitch"; I have always known you to a thoughtful, caring, compassionate human being. If you think I'm wandering into hypocrisy territory, you should say so, and I'll take that opinion seriously. But as you have said, my life experiences have also given me insight into human communication and the plight of minority status. And I haven't, at least at this point in my life, ever seen anything to make me think that "tolerating intolerance" leads to a net increase in tolerance. I would still be in the closet, if I believed that this were so. And I will tell you this, I did not like the closet. Is it tempting to strike back in kind at the people you see as having held the door closed? Yes. Of course it is. But it stacks up the casualties. If your aim is poor, you end up venting that rage on people who had nothing whatsoever to do with your situation -- and thus creating new enemies all around you where friendships would otherwise have been possible.

I said I didn't read the entire thread, so maybe I misunderstood. I didn't take most of the comments as criticisms of Christians per se, but rather as criticisms of the beliefs of Christians. Just like atheists, Christians are a diverse group. Many are kind, usually reasonable people who don't judge others, but those who hold the most conservative views often tend to be self righteous hypocrites, which was why I was a bit surprised to see you, who I've never thought of as one of the nasty ones, come across as harsh towards someone who has often stated how she feels about religion.

I said I was being a bitch because I did think it was a little mean to point out what might be perceived as hypocrisy. I don't like to be so judgmental, which is why I was insulting myself as well as you.

And just like it's true that not all Christians judge those outside their group harshly, atheists are an extremely diverse group. Some even identify as atheist Christians, while others believe that religion is the cause of all of the world's ills. I see religion as I see all man made mythology or if you prefer, ideology. It has both positive and negative elements. When it becomes extreme, like it does in the fundamentalist versions, it's a very hateful, potentially harmful ideology.

But, yeah. It would be best if we could discuss these things without getting too emotional. At least half of my friends are Christians. I love them and they return that love to me. All but one knows I"m an atheist, but she is a person who has struggled with poverty all of her life, and her religious beliefs offer her a lot of comfort. I seriously doubt she would think I'm going to hell if I outed myself. I've just never seen the necessity to do that.

Now, we just need a chorus of Ray Charles singing, "Just a Little Bit of Love". . If only...........

I think we are on the same page, or at least, different pages of the same book. Truthfully, I do regret letting my temper get the better of me; my initial thought upon seeing this thread was to ignore it entirely, and I should have stuck to my guns. But only because the problem is intractable, not because of any sympathy for the position of inter-religious bigotry.

 

[Angry Floof]

We take part because we are all a part of society and we are all effected by the beliefs of others as expressed in their attitudes and their actions. Pity it isn't just Tea and Scones.

No, YOU are of that part of society that is godless and wicked, that part that is separate from the morally superior social club... oops, I meant separate from God.

Christianity is fundamentally tribalist and will always serve as a source of conflict in any society. Like every authoritarian cult, the idea is that society should be entirely under the domain of the religion and then all will be lovely and peaceful for everyone. Until then, "peace" is for lost souls who worship themselves and are blind to God's love while Christian soldiers have much work to do in the war against evil.

Tribalist?

Absolutely. Demonstrably. Saved vs. Unsaved. Jesus/God vs. Satan, etc. "Spread the gospel," meaning turn those who don't identify or believe as we do into people who do identify and believe as we do.

Back in the day did you ever go to a Grateful Dead concert? The term was Dead Heads for their followers. The Bob Dylan tribe?

You can't be seriously comparing music fandom to religion. In fact, I don't believe you are serious in this. I think you just pulled something out of your ass to try to rile me up. If not, then you need to try a little thought experiment where YOU explain, honestly, why religion like Christianity is NOT like music fandom. You can do it. I have faith in you.

Atheism depending on the group can be as tribal as anything.

There is nothing in the lack of belief in God that inherently teaches that others are different from "us." And religious believers do not constitute "everybody." Religion is but one demographic among numerous "tribes" that non-religious world views such as humanism do not regard as "them." We are all "us." It's mainly right wing ideological groups, religious or not, that consider themselves the in-group while virtually any other demographic is "them."

So, no, atheism is not just as tribal as anything. Another point you are grasping at with no foundation.

Modern music is tribalism in the extreme. Pro sports. Politics. Ethnic groups. It is irrational to call out religion as a singular 'evil'.

I would agree about sports to an extent, and Chomsky said it best, that sports fandom is just training in irrational jingoism. However, religion like Christianity is heavy indoctrination of irrational jingoism.

I participate here because the adessive and intrusive Christians try to impose beliefs through politics enacted in laws. I grew up in New England with Blue Laws. No major business on Sunday and no alcohol sales in stores. Sodomy laws that were not just applied to gays but to heteros as well.

Then it behooves you to understand why they do what they do, and not just that they do these things. Intrusive religion will thrive until we better recognize why they do it and hold them responsible for their backward, inhumane, anti-critical thinking teachings.

Right now I am far more worried about the increasingly secular processive assaults' on free speech.

Can you give an example of your right to free speech being trampled?

My philosophy is your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose, an old saying. Believe, associate, and express as you like. Just don't intrude with it on my life.

How am I intruding on your life?? For fuck's sake. Saying things you don't like about religion isn't trampling your right to anything. Unless you think YOU have the right to shut ME up somehow? I mean, you can't, but you must think you should have the right to for you to think your right to speech is trampled because I'm saying things.

Mutual tolerance to ensure mutual existence. I don't want to suppress religion anymore than ET believers.

I tolerate a hell of a lot more than Christians do! And my level of tolerance is well in line with humane principles like inclusiveness and value on human well being. And I tolerate Christians as well. I just don't pretend to tolerate their inhumane world view. I would never support any action that actually did impinge on their rights or marginalize them in terms of access to everything in society that the rest of us have access to, just like I don't support doing that to LGBTQ people, for example. And by the way, LGBTQ people don't believe or preach that heterosexuality must be stamped out and suggest that all heteros must be executed, or at best, don't support extremes like that but ignore their fellow LGBTQ denominations that call for beheading heteros and cis gendered people.

And by the way, ET believers by and large are also tolerant. I have not seen any noticeable overlap in ET beliefs and hatred/condemnation of other ideological groups. I have yet to hear of ufologists or ancient alien theorists - or for that matter, witches, wiccans, or even whack job wealthy white wellness women selling toxic goop for people to stuff in their vaginas, yes, even groups that sometimes do things that are harmful in their ignorance - getting together to sing and chant to reinforce the beliefs and concepts, or basing their belief system in a fundamental difference in human beings (those who believe like us and those who don't), or telling each other or being told that everyone else out in the world is lying to them about human nature and spirituality and this enclave is the only place where you will hear the truth, or that you are unworthy, broken, lost, sinful, evil, etc., if you don't belong to this in-group and don't believe the correct story about human sacrifice and eternal hell...

I could go on and on, of course, as you know. Very few Christian sects stray from these authoritarian control and fear tactics at their core. And there's so much more than that that separates Christianity (and Islam and numerous other authoritarian, ignorance-based religions) from music fandom or virtually any other grouping or shared interest you can throw down. (You must really think TFT is a bunch of real morons if you think anyone but your fellow believers and apologists will fall for that.)

Like all human behavior there are positives and negatives to relgion.

Like all human behavior, there are positives and negatives to white supremacy. See how dumb that sounds? What are the positives and negatives? Identify them. Examine them. "Positive and negative" are not equally distributed among all ideas and beliefs. What are the differences? Why are you so scared of identifying inhumane beliefs and holding people accountable for perpetuating them? If all beliefs and ideas are equally "positive and negative" and equally tending toward tribalism or authoritarianism or peaceful behaviors or inclusive world views, then nothing we believe means anything. Have the courage and decency to do the work here.

The reason you can only respond with meaningless platitudes like this or with blatantly false analogies is because you don't have anything else. You're fully capable of honestly examining religious psychology and world views but somehow you just won't. Is it because I'm so mean?

 

[Angry Floof]

Now, we just need a chorus of Ray Charles singing, "Just a Little Bit of Love". . If only...........

I'd settle for just a little bit of critical thinking and honesty. People using my tone or my personality or my refusal to respect depraved beliefs as arguments is getting a bit old.

 

[Politesse]

Okay, so, aside from the fact that you're demanding that people not be insulted when you insult them, what sort of quality conversations are you expecting to have? "Everyone who wears this label is depraved" doesn't leave much room for a discussion. What is anyone going to learn from a dialogue that starts with empty polemics? "Depraved" isn't an evaluable claim, it's just a diss. No one is going to go home and rethink their life because you slung some schoolyard insults at them, that's just not how human communication works.

 

[abaddon]

The only reasonable response, when anyone focuses on negatives in religion but they disagree, is they should SHOW how religion's not so bad.

 

[Politesse]

The only reasonable response, when anyone focuses on negatives in religion but they disagree, is they should SHOW how religion's not so bad.

What, like a top ten list? Many in this thread have made it quite clear that should any moral principles stemming from religion be shown to be valid for all people, than they would equally be accessible to atheists (tautologically true) and therefore not attributable to religion. Insults not attached to tangible critique aren't really falsifiable; the best you can get once a slanging match starts is some nonsense along the lines of "well, just because you're not so bad doesn't mean my pejoratives aren't valid for 'most' members of the social class I'm disparaging, which means you're as guilty as them anyway since you haven't dropped the label you share with them."

 

[southernhybrid]

Now, we just need a chorus of Ray Charles singing, "Just a Little Bit of Love". . If only...........

I'd settle for just a little bit of critical thinking and honesty. People using my tone or my personality or my refusal to respect depraved beliefs as arguments is getting a bit old.

My comment had nothing to do with you. I just like it when people can discuss their differences without attacking each other, but you weren't on my mind when I wrote that. I'm sorry if you took it personally. Of course, we both know that it can be very difficult to understand each other's intentions when we are online. I've been misunderstood many times and I assume you probably have been too.

I totally agree that atheism isn't the least bit tribal. Look at how so many of us have disagreed with each other in one thread. . I've been a member of several real life atheist groups and the expression, "you can't herd cats" really applies to atheists.

Our lack of belief in gods is sometimes the only thing that we have in common. It's just nice to get together with people who don't believe in any gods when you live in the heart of the Bible Belt. But, it's extremely difficult to keep our little groups intact, since they usually include people who don't have that much in common.

It's likely that I don't view Christianity exactly as you do. There are some versions that seem to offer people purpose, hope and community without causing them emotional harm. But, you and I don't have to see things the same way. That's what's cool about being an atheist. We don't have to agree, but hopefully, we can still care about each other. So, my mildly sarcastic reference in regards to one of my favorite, lesser known Ray Charles songs wasn't meant to insult anyone. Maybe I was attempting to lower the tension in the thread, but that wasn't directed at any individual, as we all sometimes go off the rails a bit. I also know that the idea that love can conquer all, is a myth. It's just a myth that I really like. And, all things considered, love is an important emotion that does sometimes help people accept and appreciate each other, even when they have very little in common.

 

[steve_bank]

Science gave us mass agriculture producing far more calories then we need, a side effect is mass producing junk food leading to obesity and medical issues like diabetes costing a lot of money.

Science gave us nuclear energy that can be used for elctrical power, amd it led to nuclear weapons.

One can argue sconce has ed to all te technology that ed up to efficient deadly warfare on a global scale.

Religion has always been part of a social and ciil cohesion and stability.

Conservatives make a case the rise in drug addictions and violence is attrubted to the diminishing of religion and the community that goes along with it.

At least to a degree I agree.

We can sit back and assume without the stabilizing influence of religion all us finicky humans are going to be rational. Observation around the world says otherwise. In the past I have asked the atheist side, if not religion what replaces religion as it goes away? Perhaps the do anything you like any time you like we have today?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The only reasonable response, when anyone focuses on negatives in religion but they disagree, is they should SHOW how religion's not so bad.

Eywa has heard you!

 

[DBT]

Science gave us mass agriculture producing far more calories then we need, a side effect is mass producing junk food leading to obesity and medical issues like diabetes costing a lot of money.

Science gave us nuclear energy that can be used for elctrical power, amd it led to nuclear weapons.

One can argue sconce has ed to all te technology that ed up to efficient deadly warfare on a global scale.

Religion has always been part of a social and ciil cohesion and stability.

Conservatives make a case the rise in drug addictions and violence is attrubted to the diminishing of religion and the community that goes along with it.

At least to a degree I agree.

We can sit back and assume without the stabilizing influence of religion all us finicky humans are going to be rational. Observation around the world says otherwise. In the past I have asked the atheist side, if not religion what replaces religion as it goes away? Perhaps the do anything you like any time you like we have today?

I'm not sure that religion has prevented people from doing whatever they like. Perhaps causing more division and conflict than preventing war and strife. Civil law may be more effective for moderating behaviour. Just a question of who formulates the law and is it ideology replacing religion.

 

[abaddon]

In the past I have asked the atheist side, if not religion what replaces religion as it goes away? Perhaps the do anything you like any time you like we have today?

What will replace religion? My hope is it'll be a more science-centric culture, with due respect for people's "spirituality".

"But science does bad things too" is what your post suggests.

No, it doesn't.

Psychedelic research has discovered that psychedelics can cure depression, addictions, terror of death. Often with one single dose - one afternoon of a wild ride in the right set and setting. Nothing in conventional psychopharmacology or therapy compares.

Knowing that is thanks to science. But that it had to be rediscovered in the 2000's after we already knew in the 1950's to 60's that, for many people, these maladies can be CURED, and that it's still fighting an uphill battle for acceptance, is thanks to conservatives and puritanical traditional values and being overreactive against change.

How does a psychedelic drug cure an addict or drug-resistant depressed person or a terminal patient who's scared of death? With a spiritual experience. Michael Pollan, an atheist and skeptic, explores this in his book How to Change Your Mind - a superb piece of journalistic writing that everyone should read. The set and setting in combo with the drug induces a transcendent experience in theists and atheists alike. They find the little egoic bit of the brain that was fearful or addicted or depressed isn't actually who they are.

Is that a positive for religion? Yes. The induction of such healthful states of consciousness has been explored by mystical contemplatives practicing religious practices.

But then, the negative for religion is the traditionalist majority viewed their mystics as heretics. The conservative "let's not allow change" trait of scared dumb apes fucked things up in religious society too.

Does it mean the traditions of supernaturalist religions should be respected? I don't see why. That's not "the baby in the bathwater" of religion.

What will replace religion? My vote is a naturalistic spirituality that fully honors science but makes neither it nor "humanity" into the alternative object of worship (ie, of excess regard).

 

[Angry Floof]

Now, we just need a chorus of Ray Charles singing, "Just a Little Bit of Love". . If only...........

I'd settle for just a little bit of critical thinking and honesty. People using my tone or my personality or my refusal to respect depraved beliefs as arguments is getting a bit old.

My comment had nothing to do with you.

I didn't think it did. It was just a comment I wanted to take off on.

I just like it when people can discuss their differences without attacking each other, but you weren't on my mind when I wrote that. I'm sorry if you took it personally. Of course, we both know that it can be very difficult to understand each other's intentions when we are online. I've been misunderstood many times and I assume you probably have been too.

I totally agree that atheism isn't the least bit tribal. Look at how so many of us have disagreed with each other in one thread. . I've been a member of several real life atheist groups and the expression, "you can't herd cats" really applies to atheists.

Our lack of belief in gods is sometimes the only thing that we have in common. It's just nice to get together with people who don't believe in any gods when you live in the heart of the Bible Belt. But, it's extremely difficult to keep our little groups intact, since they usually include people who don't have that much in common.

It's likely that I don't view Christianity exactly as you do. There are some versions that seem to offer people purpose, hope and community without causing them emotional harm. But, you and I don't have to see things the same way. That's what's cool about being an atheist. We don't have to agree, but hopefully, we can still care about each other. So, my mildly sarcastic reference in regards to one of my favorite, lesser known Ray Charles songs wasn't meant to insult anyone. Maybe I was attempting to lower the tension in the thread, but that wasn't directed at any individual, as we all sometimes go off the rails a bit. I also know that the idea that love can conquer all, is a myth. It's just a myth that I really like. And, all things considered, love is an important emotion that does sometimes help people accept and appreciate each other, even when they have very little in common.

I haven't been the least bit bothered by your posts here. I probably should have made that clearer.

There are some versions that seem to offer people purpose, hope and community without causing them emotional harm.

Totally agree. But they do not have any influence on mainstream Christianity or those things that give rise to authoritarian theocracies. They are at best irrelevant to the problems of Christianity. At worst, they are complicit through ignorance of their own religious identity and the social dynamics they are a part of whether they know it or not.

But speaking of "versions" that are not harmful, first I'd like to say that any time Christianity, any denomination, is a minority or is surrounded by a larger, non-Christian society (whether secular or another religion), they're pretty peaceful and don't misbehave too much. But once again I will reiterate this - Christianity on the whole, with few exceptions, contains the seeds of zealous authoritarianism and eschews the means and methods to mitigate it. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Educate all of society and base laws and policies on evidence and not religious ideas and a truly peaceful society is much more likely than if we continue to ignore those seeds and that lack of mitigation inherent in almost all strains of Christianity. I shouldn't have to keep saying this and saying this so damn much, especially here on this particular board: some basic tenets, concepts, and narratives within Christianity are more or less traps for our animal brain fears and prejudices and subconscious desires. There's tons of them, and they are rarely ever addressed except by critics and apostates, and they will continue to trap people and give rise to all the bigotry, zealotry, stupidity, hypocrisy, greed, and war that we continue to see all around Christianity (and others, such as Christianity's twin in different window dressing, Islam).

Authoritarian religion is essentially our cognitive pitfalls codified while claiming to be conducive to peace and human well being. Respecting religion without examining it honestly, taking responsibility for it, and denouncing, or at the very least reforming, those aspects that poison us so easily will continue to serve us badly.

Second, I encourage everyone interested in this topic to learn more about The Friends, aka the Quakers. They are a Christian sect, but they have all but obliterated those seeds of authoritarianism in their faith. Their founder, George Fox, was an insightful dude who spotted those poisonous aspects of the religion and started his own version without them. And since the 1640s, there has never been an authoritarian movement in relation to Quakers. Their beliefs and practices specifically steer them away from those ugly base instincts and toward actually being better humans rather than just lip service from a social dominance cult.

They eschew authority figures. No one is in charge of the "church" or the congregation. Anyone can lead a service, which they call meetings. No one is given power or authority over another. Everyone is their own moral and spiritual authority, even children, though of course their autonomy is considered under stewardship of the parents.

They believe no one can tell anyone else what to believe and everyone is free to discover and interpret the divine as they see fit, again, even children. This respect for autonomy is not only lacking in the rest of Christendom but is actively overwritten so to speak by evangelism and authoritarian teaching where the imperative is explicitly and implicitly to "save" everyone by making sure they accept their interpretation of God/Jesus. Quakers are miles ahead of all other Christian sects in that respect. (There may be some other sects similar to Quakers in this regard such as Gnostics, but I'm not as familiar with that.)

Pacifism is a pillar of Quaker faith, as is fighting for and helping the most vulnerable among us, particularly targets of authoritarian prejudice.

Self reflection is an everyday practice for Quakers to help them grow as human beings and to check their own bullshit, not to make sure they're conforming to dogma.

Quakers don't preach or prosthelytize their religion, but they do promote pacifism and other humane values and principles to the world respectfully and unobtrusively. They just don't make their religious identity an issue in their wider societies. Identity not the most important thing to them.

The rest of Christianity is a machine that produces unaware authoritarian obedience machines, and they are well programmed to keep it that way, sadly. As I've said many times of Christians who are truly decent, aware people with humane principles and regard for their fellow human beings, their ordinary humanness is morally superior to the religion they claim and they can rightfully congratulate themselves for not allowing the pitfalls of immorality of their religion to steal their conscience and innate goodness.

 

[Angry Floof]

. In the past I have asked the atheist side, if not religion what replaces religion as it goes away? Perhaps the do anything you like any time you like we have today?

And it's been answered many times. Religion offers nothing of human goodness that can't be had without it. We already have everything we think we need from religion. We don't need religion to experience something bigger than ourselves. We don't need religion to have hope. We don't need religion to have community. We certainly don't need religion to use logic and reason by any means. We don't need religion to love each other and take care of each other. We don't need religion to learn. We don't need it to strive for something better than just animal brain reactions. We don't need it to develop principled world views. We don't need it to develop conscience and engage in moral struggle. We don't need it to solve real problems. We don't need it to develop a framework of thoughtful concern that includes the entire world. In fact, much of religion stands in the way of these things.

So what part of we already have everything we need to do and experience any of the things religion claims to offer do you not understand?

 

[Learner]

steve bank:

Like all human behavior there are positives and negatives to relgion.

Like all human behavior, there are positives and negatives to white supremacy. See how dumb that sounds?

Yes I'd say the same, it does sound a little dumb, depending how one sees, or takes the wording...

Religion is : "white supremacy" (your chosen example).

One could take that rethoric as a personal campaign, which is quite normal to do, as I can see your strong and passionate, opposition to religion. The analogy is ok, but imo, the illustration can be a little misleading...

To state the obvious: religion on the whole i.e. faiths like Islam and Hinduism etc. would be a contradiction to your above analogy in context. But you can be assured, I'll declare here, that I am not a white supremacist - BUT, I do claim to be of the Christian Faith, or one of them. I'm sure this goes for the others on the forum.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

. In the past I have asked the atheist side, if not religion what replaces religion as it goes away? Perhaps the do anything you like any time you like we have today?

And it's been answered many times. Religion offers nothing of human goodness that can't be had without it. We already have everything we think we need from religion. We don't need religion to experience something bigger than ourselves. We don't need religion to have hope. We don't need religion to have community. We certainly don't need religion to use logic and reason by any means. We don't need religion to love each other and take care of each other. We don't need religion to learn. We don't need it to strive for something better than just animal brain reactions. We don't need it to develop principled world views. We don't need it to develop conscience and engage in moral struggle. We don't need it to solve real problems. We don't need it to develop a framework of thoughtful concern that includes the entire world. In fact, much of religion stands in the way of these things.

So what part of we already have everything we need to do and experience any of the things religion claims to offer do you not understand?

I agree it's a weird question. It demonstrates that religion doesn't really do anything. Is religion supposed to be treating or curing something? What?

 

[DBT]

Some appear to support a need for the Royal or Noble Lie, but it's debatable whether that does more good than harm.