*rant* Fundamentalism is stupid

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a pet peeve of mine. Atheists on atheist forums love talking about how fundamentalism is stupid because this or that proves such and such. Therefore religion is stupid.

No. Religion isn't stupid. Religion is often deep and smart. Because their texts have evolved over the millenea. Newer texts build upon earlier texts. That is the strength of religion.

Ideas having evolved over time is NOT a weakness for religion. Any religion.

Fundamentalism is dumb. The idea that any religious text came fully formed down from above is a ridiculous and obviously false notion. And you having managed to prove that (yet again) is not a point against religion. All it does is prove that you (and fundamentalists) don't understand what religion is all about. Thinking that you have scored a goal against religion just makes you look shallow and stupid

*end of rant*

 

[lostone]

If we still had the moderate, enlightened elements of religion you cite, which once existed in large numbers in the US, atheists in the US would be much more tolerant. We who are in the US have a powerful, if not dominant, intolerant religious political minority who promote religious views that have not evolved at all.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Having discussed sophisticated theology for years on some theology blogs far from here, I can attest that theologies other than the fundamentalist variety are just as stupid, wrong and irrational as fundamentalism.

 

[abaddon]

Texts lead people to think it's the beliefs that matter. The texts are either 1) mythology, which obscures the message (though potentially reveals it if you enjoy decoding masked messages... but the usual result is literal-minded people mistake them for history or even pre-modern science). Or else 2) they're ossification of mystical insights into dogmas and moralisms, leading people to think the point of religion is to 'believe in' a set of tenets and to get moral and obedient.

I tried out buddhism for a while because I was interested in "mystical" experience more than mythology and tenets. "Mystical" here means focused more inwardly on the quality of experience itself, instead of outwardly on dogmas. IMO that's the baby in the bathwater. Within religions is a contemplative technology to make a heaven out of earthly existence (I mean "heaven" as a psychological state, not a metaphysical "realm" beyond our embodied lives). In mysticism, one learns to identify with the cosmos (or with Beingness) instead of with the avaricious little "I-me-mine!" want-machine that's so often yapping inside the human skull.

More recently I read a few books by Karen Armstrong, to see a more liberal take on what Christianity's about. And if she's right then Christianity's every bit as brilliant as Buddhism. They're both telling the same basic message, that everything's better if you'll get over your little want-machine of a self. Buddhism has some more abstract explanations so it gets called "philosophy" and Christianity is called "religion" for relying more on myth and metaphor, which will make the message seem more obscure (or wholly invisible) to people looking for rationalism in it.

IMO religion, inasmuch as it has "mysticism" in it, is about the transformation of consciousness. The texts are where you look first because that's the easy way to get the summary. But the summary is dead words; it's the living experience that matters. To see it you have to skip past the fundies and theologians and all literal-minded "explaining" and stop looking for an alternate physics, and look instead for a phenomenology of experience.

The Stoopid in religion is wherever it tries to be an objective explanation of the universe.

The Smart in religion is where it points inwardly at self-transformation.

 

[blastula]

The idea that any religious text came fully formed down from above is a ridiculous and obviously false notion.

Obviously, it's not obviously false to believers. Even non-fundamentalists believe that about their texts.

And you having managed to prove that (yet again) is not a point against religion.

It's not a point against all religion, but it is a point against actual religions with millions or billions of adherents.

All it does is prove that you (and fundamentalists) don't understand what religion is all about.

Who made you the arbiter of what religion is all about? As though religion is even about any one thing, or that there's one true religion.

It's a fallacy to say that a religion should be defined by the most sophisticated theologians' version of it, when that version may represent a tiny minority of the actual believers. If it's defined by anything, it should be defined by what the actual practitioners believe.

Thinking that you have scored a goal against religion just makes you look shallow and stupid.

Yet, you're the one that's calling believers stupid.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sophisticated theist: " Where the Bibles says X (inconvenient proposition) the Bible really means Not X. Really! You have to read the Bible analogically." I have had this 'debate' many a time. And God is incomprehensible. Thus logic cannot debunk the incomprehensible God. And Aquinas says, Aristotle says.....

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sophisticated theist: " Where the Bibles says X (inconvenient proposition) the Bible really means Not X. Really! You have to read the Bible analogically." I have had this 'debate' many a time. And God is incomprehensible. Thus logic cannot debunk the incomprehensible God. And Aquinas says, Aristotle says.....

That's just an avoidant fundamentalist. The moment a theist thinks they have it all figured out and all others are wrong, they're doing the fundie dance. If your religion doesn't genuinely teach you humility (a basic tenet in all major religions since forever) then the way you are doing religion is wrong. Any religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The idea that any religious text came fully formed down from above is a ridiculous and obviously false notion.

Obviously, it's not obviously false to believers. Even non-fundamentalists believe that about their texts.

It takes minimal interest in any religious text to learn this about it. If you care that little about the background of your religion, then are you even religious?

And you having managed to prove that (yet again) is not a point against religion.

It's not a point against all religion, but it is a point against actual religions with millions or billions of adherents.

I don't care what stupid people do. Stupid people are a danger to themselves and others regardless of if they are religious or not.

Idiots are loud, but rarely in positions of power.

All it does is prove that you (and fundamentalists) don't understand what religion is all about.

Who made you the arbiter of what religion is all about? As though religion is even about any one thing, or that there's one true religion.

It's a fallacy to say that a religion should be defined by the most sophisticated theologians' version of it, when that version may represent a tiny minority of the actual believers. If it's defined by anything, it should be defined by what the actual practitioners believe.

Religion is about coping in a world with few answers. As Dan Harmon put it "religion is about our relationship with the unknown".

I'm willing to take a bold stance for this forum. Religion is whatever you need to believe to get yourself out of bed in the morning.

In organised religion, packaged together with that is sets of rituals and practices to help you manage life.

Yes, I am willing to stick my chin out on this. But this is what I believe.

Thinking that you have scored a goal against religion just makes you look shallow and stupid.

Yet, you're the one that's calling believers stupid.

I did?

 

[lostone]

IMO, almost all religious (and non-religious) people really have their own private interpretation of whatever it is that they believe or do not believe. That is why heresies so readily arise and why the orthodox work so hard to punish any deviation from the party line .

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's probably a good idea to differentiate between the delusional and the religious. Lets face it, literalism is being delusional and being delusional is a certifiable mental condition. Lots of literalists, given an honest choice would probably opt out of their delusional worldview. But when family and community pressure are involved it isn't an honest choice anymore. It's a rational choice to maintain contacts with your family and your community and your "church" but there's a bit of blackmail and arm-twisting involved which is the dishonesty.

When I hit the trails and the backcountry I'm probably being as "religious" as the person who uses holy water and professes miracle belief, but I'm not being delusional.

 

[DrZoidberg]

IMO, almost all religious (and non-religious) people really have their own private interpretation of whatever it is that they believe or do not believe. That is why heresies so readily arise and why the orthodox work so hard to punish any deviation from the party line .

No. You are talking about a way of thinking unique to Abrahamic religion. While these religions are very popular today, they are not a universal rule for all religion. Buddhists don't have heretics. Neither do Hindus. Neither Pagans.

 

[lostone]

IMO, almost all religious (and non-religious) people really have their own private interpretation of whatever it is that they believe or do not believe. That is why heresies so readily arise and why the orthodox work so hard to punish any deviation from the party line .

No. You are talking about a way of thinking unique to Abrahamic religion. While these religions are very popular today, they are not a universal rule for all religion. Buddhists don't have heretics. Neither do Hindus. Neither Pagans.

They still have opinions that are likely unique, or at least rare.

 

[DrZoidberg]

IMO, almost all religious (and non-religious) people really have their own private interpretation of whatever it is that they believe or do not believe. That is why heresies so readily arise and why the orthodox work so hard to punish any deviation from the party line .

No. You are talking about a way of thinking unique to Abrahamic religion. While these religions are very popular today, they are not a universal rule for all religion. Buddhists don't have heretics. Neither do Hindus. Neither Pagans.

They still have opinions that are likely unique, or at least rare.

What do you mean?

 

[lostone]

IMO, almost all religious (and non-religious) people really have their own private interpretation of whatever it is that they believe or do not believe. That is why heresies so readily arise and why the orthodox work so hard to punish any deviation from the party line .

No. You are talking about a way of thinking unique to Abrahamic religion. While these religions are very popular today, they are not a universal rule for all religion. Buddhists don't have heretics. Neither do Hindus. Neither Pagans.

They still have opinions that are likely unique, or at least rare.

What do you mean?

Each person has/had their own interpretation of paganism, Hinduism, and even the Abrahamic religions. The Abrahamic ones, of course, are different in their often violent efforts to enforce conformity.

 

[lostone]

It's probably a good idea to differentiate between the delusional and the religious. Lets face it, literalism is being delusional and being delusional is a certifiable mental condition. Lots of literalists, given an honest choice would probably opt out of their delusional worldview. But when family and community pressure are involved it isn't an honest choice anymore. It's a rational choice to maintain contacts with your family and your community and your "church" but there's a bit of blackmail and arm-twisting involved which is the dishonesty.

When I hit the trails and the backcountry I'm probably being as "religious" as the person who uses holy water and professes miracle belief, but I'm not being delusional.

Social pressure, deftly applied, by religious zealots and leaders, is a large part of how religion functions and why it is so powerful. The women in Iran, for example, don't have a chance against it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

IMO, almost all religious (and non-religious) people really have their own private interpretation of whatever it is that they believe or do not believe. That is why heresies so readily arise and why the orthodox work so hard to punish any deviation from the party line .

No. You are talking about a way of thinking unique to Abrahamic religion. While these religions are very popular today, they are not a universal rule for all religion. Buddhists don't have heretics. Neither do Hindus. Neither Pagans.

They still have opinions that are likely unique, or at least rare.

What do you mean?

Each person has/had their own interpretation of paganism, Hinduism, and even the Abrahamic religions. The Abrahamic ones, of course, are different in their often violent efforts to enforce conformity.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. But essentially yes. Hindus and pagans could be pretty intolerant inside their own family. But rarely got into other families business

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Religion isn't stupid. Religion is often deep and smart.

You are mistaking text with religion. A text is a collection of words. A religion is an application of those words in the real world. And I said "an", not "the", as the application of any set of words is not binary or set in stone.

As we've seen, the application of such words is quite arbitrary and not warrantied to contain any wisdom in its enforcement.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Religion isn't stupid. Religion is often deep and smart.

You are mistaking text with religion. A text is a collection of words. A religion is an application of those words in the real world. And I said "an", not "the", as the application of any set of words is not binary or set in stone.

As we've seen, the application of such words is quite arbitrary and not warrantied to contain any wisdom in its enforcement.

Nope. That again is uniquely Abrahamic religion. The Bhagavad Gita isn't the source of Hindu wisdom. It's just a collection of Hindu wisdom. Buddha didn't divinely inspire the Tripitaka. The Egyptian book of the dead is the result of Egyptian priestly "science". The Pagan epics are just traditions. They were usually fine with authors and playwrites taking artistic license

 

[southernhybrid]

All religion is based on mythology and those who have liberal interpretations of the myths they hold dear are rarely a problem to others. The main problem with fundamentalists is that they judge those who don't share their beliefs. While it's not common, fundamentalists sometimes become dangerous and many push for a theocratic form of government. That seems to be what's happening to some extent in the US these days. Fundamentalist Christians also believe that belief is more important than good works and if they "sin", all they have to do is ask forgiveness and all is well again.

Fundamentalists who aren't a threat are still annoying, like the one who wanted to share her testimony with me a few weeks ago because she was worried about what would become of me in the afterlife. I know what that means. She thinks that those who don't believe the nonsense that she believes are going to spend eternity being tortured by her all loving god. Yeah. That's pretty stupid, judgmental and nasty. They just don't see it that way.

 

[Learner]

All religion is based on mythology and those who have liberal interpretations of the myths they hold dear are rarely a problem to others. The main problem with fundamentalists is that they judge those who don't share their beliefs. While it's not common, fundamentalists sometimes become dangerous and many push for a theocratic form of government.

Fundamentalism or extremism, is a trait among the human race, as a whole. Atheist are not immune to being judgemental to other people who don't take to the 'ideals' put out there, by atheists.

We can't take ALL the credit, let's share.

That seems to be what's happening to some extent in the US these days. Fundamentalist Christians also believe that belief is more important than good works and if they "sin", all they have to do is ask forgiveness and all is well again.

I don't doubt there would be someone out there like this, however...
...to keep on sinning; thinking that continuously, "you would always be forgiven", and "all will be well again, when repeating the same sins", doesn't sound biblically correct imo.

Fundamentalists who aren't a threat are still annoying, like the one who wanted to share her testimony with me a few weeks ago because she was worried about what would become of me in the afterlife. I know what that means. She thinks that those who don't believe the nonsense that she believes are going to spend eternity being tortured by her all loving god. Yeah. That's pretty stupid, judgmental and nasty. They just don't see it that way.

Fair enough pov, you are entitled to make those judgements.