Religion sucks

[Lion IRC]

The benefits of religion far outweigh the (undisputed) atrocities committed in the name OF religion. Seriously!

Ah yes - bring on the atrocities - benefits are sure to follow!
That fairly sums up the rest of your screed.

I dont dispute - in fact I freely affirm - that atrocities committed in the name of religion amount to a formidable argument against "religion". But I assert that the benefits of religion far outweigh the abuse of religion.

Muslims (true Muslims) overwhelmingly regard 9/11 as an atrocity. Christians overwhelmingly agree that the atrocities which folks like SLD and phands (and Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett, etc) polemicize, DESERVE to be condemned.

My point is, if you identify yourself as a rational, reasonable, critical thinker, then you are obligated to weigh the overall net good/bad.

 

[Brian63]

Ditto to Angry Floof's comments.

 

[Brian63]

You seem to find religion as inherently bad.

No. Nothing is “inherently” bad. Cancer and COVID are not “inherently” bad either. Yet we still try to minimize their occurrences and alleviate the suffering they cause, because they run in value to our own. An ideology can still be harmful, without it being “inherently” harmful. Its real-world effects are still detrimental to achievement of our own goals.

I see it like I see all human inventions, a mix of both beneficial and potentially harmful things.

Fundamentalist religion is also a human invention. You earlier acknowledged that fundamentalist religion sucks though, which contradicts your statement now that all human inventions have a mix of both beneficial and potentially harmful things. Since fundamentalist religion has some benefits (e.g. provides existential relief and community), will you retract your earlier statement that fundamentalist religion sucks?

It gives some people an opportunity for community and purpose.

Oppressive cults and violent gangs can do that too. Do you only look at the benefits that religion provides people, and ignore all the harms that they inflict on them?

If that makes them. happy, who are we to destroy what gives them joy?

We are other people who care about those people, care about ourselves, and care about others who will be impacted by the irrational and irresponsible religious beliefs.

1. Sometimes people actually are hiding what harm their cult beliefs are doing to them. They proclaim how much inner peace their religious beliefs bring to them, because that is what is socially and publicly expected of them. Really though, they can be aware of the stresses that their religion brings to them. They are intimidated from expressing their real views though for fear of ostracization and more. So for those of us who do NOT face those same risks, it is easier for us to help and bear their burden. If we care about them, we should be willing to take on that task.
2. People can also be harmed by their religion, even if they are completely oblivious to the harm that their religion is doing to them. Their religious beliefs can exploit them emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, morally. Leave them with trauma of fear of heaven/hell, guilt about not measuring up to God’s standards, fears about having questions or doubts about their beliefs, panic about willing to discuss their beliefs with others in their tight community, etc. In public, these people can sincerely say that their religious beliefs provide them inner peace. Deeper down though, those religious beliefs are also doing damage to them at their core, without them knowing it. Those 2 effects can coexist.
3. Other people who are non-members of the religion are also impacted by the religious beliefs of other people. As mentioned earlier, our society treats it as a virtue to hold beliefs when there is no supporting evidence for those beliefs, and especially when there is evidence that flies in the face of those beliefs. God will look on you especially favorably if you hold on to your religious beliefs when every bit of data suggests that the religious beliefs are wrong and should be changed. That is a trait common in both moderate and fundamentalist varieties of religion. That needs to stop. As long as moderate religions continue to advance that attitude, they are enabling the fundamentalist religions into doing the same. They empower them and treat it as normal to hold such views. Religious people use their religious views to rationalize their harmful political, scientific, moral, legal, social views and behaviors towards others who are not members of the same religion.

If some people need a little mythology in their lives, I have no problem with it,…

What if that mythology was:

1. Harming themselves, without them being aware that it was doing so (the harms of religion can be very subtle and hidden, especially to members of the religion).
2. Harming you.
3. Harming other people, besides the religious member and besides you.

If any of those scenarios apply and people were being harmed, would it be no big deal to you? I want to reduce the harm inflicted by religion, which is why it is important to be vocal on it. Not sit back and be passive about it.

I used to hold to that same mantra of “as long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, I do not care what they believe.” That is a very flawed approach though. It assumes that beliefs are capable of living in isolation. That turns out not to be the case though. Our religious beliefs affect other beliefs that we hold on a variety of subjects. Since we people also do not live in a vacuum but instead in a world that is very interconnected, the beliefs of us have impacts on ourselves and on others. So for the sake of wanting to help the world, we should care about what each other believes.

so we will simply have to agree to disagree.

That does not mean that I am going to silence my opinion. If you continue to keep expressing your mantra of “as long as they do not impose it on me, I do not care what they believe” then I am free to expose the flaws in that approach. It is important that people do not become misinformed into thinking that is a worthwhile mentality, when actually it is nonsensical.

 

[Lion IRC]

In response to some comments I hadn't read when I posted my previous comment, let's talk about those seeds that do indeed exist within liberal strains of Christianity.

1. Authority worship. There is only one God and it's a basic commandment to believe this. Punishments for not believing vary among different denominations and communities, but there is no sect or denomination that doesn't punish non-belief on some level, from "polite" ostracization to excommunication to the atrocities of fundamentalist extremists.

Technically speaking God doesnt "command" anyone to believe that He exists.

...2. Us vs. them framework. You are saved or not. You are a Christian or not. If you have to "love the sinner, not the sin," then you are rationalizing that fundamental dichotomy. Another form of "pity" as a way of condemning others while pretending compassion for them. Even if you truly have some level of genuine care for your non-believing fellow human beings, the belief that your religion is the epitome of morality, you will not be able to continue to be a believing Christian and truly consider them to be "your tribe."

Saved / Unsaved. Elect / Damned. True Christian / Heretic. This is a contentious, controversial doctrine. Technically, ALL of US are sinners. All of us are judged by our actions and whats in our heart.

...3. Doubt is a sin. Questioning God or the human authority figures or the authorized religious texts is, at best, strongly frowned upon. (Seriously, try this out. Ask some hard questions of "liberal" Christians and see just how quickly that claim to be open to questioning turns to anger and defensiveness.) The very things that might have the power to mitigate authoritarianism and extremism, critical thinking and willingness to question anything, including authority figures and texts, are specifically not allowed. Even the most supposedly open minded Christian communities have very short limits on actual questioning.

Again, this is not orthodoxy. Blind acceptance of dogma presented by people who cant rationally justify that dogma is NOT theologically sound. Nor is it mandated by scripture.
The bible tells me to test all things...to beware of other/vain philosophies.
Beware of = Be Aware of.

...4. The group identity. The religious identity is more valuable than the human identity. The most basic group identity a human being can hold is simply being human. Understanding this helps to see the world as "we are all in this together" and not really separate.

True. And I would argue that where the bible says..."For God so loved The World" that this means everyone.
The Gospel is intended for ALL nations.

... But, again, just point out to a Christian that the label "Christian" is only a human construct and couldn't possibly equate to God his own self, and they will likely agree it's just a label and not god. Then ask them if they are willing to drop the label or even condemn the label in order to take power away from ordinary human tribalistic behavior that Christianity has consistently brought to the world throughout its history, which surely is not God the Almighty but human fallibility, and they will not be able to separate the tribal label from their self righteous belief in a supposedly morally superior God.

See Luke 15:7 (1 lost sheep or 99 saved?) See Galatians 3:28. (There is neither Jew nor Gentile) See Luke 10:30 (The Good Samaritan / Who is my neighbor)

...I could go on if anyone is interested...

Yes I am.

...I think just these basics make it clear that in order for Christianity to become something that actually reinforces and inspires human goodness and not reinforce our stupidest and meanest animal brain behaviors, you'd have to reform it into something that no longer resembles Christianity, and Christianity is an ideological virus that is well equipped to stick around.

It is said - partly with a dose of deliberate irony - that Jesus came to bring us the Kingdom of God and all we got was the church. I think you are right call out the misalignment between the human goodness which Jesus reinforces and inspires - that which is in the Prodigal son's DNA - and the ugly opposite we see in stupid, mean, sinful behaviour. And I think you are right that its a matter of "reform". But as Jesus said, reform starts with removing the log from our own eye.

...At best, the most liberal strains of Christianity are merely latent or dormant until the all too common conditions arise for it to blossom into its fullest destructive, inhumane nature.

Religion itself is a human artifact. It is neither God nor a human being, and thus needs no protection or defense and has no rights. There is no reason not to honestly and rigorously question any aspect of it. Your humanness is much more real and valuable than a stupid religious identity.

Agreed.

 

[Angry Floof]

Technically speaking God doesnt "command" anyone to believe that He exists.

Everyone is born atheist. To believe in any God, you have to be told about God by other human beings. Even if there is some experience of being part of the universe, something transcendent, a kind of awareness of something ineffable to our existence, like some traditions might call Great Spirit or the like, without imposing human traits or constructs onto the idea. But a specific God story, such as Christianity, cannot exist without humans telling the story to other humans, and the rest is ordinary human social dynamics and psychology and behavior.

Saved / Unsaved. Elect / Damned. True Christian / Heretic. This is a contentious, controversial doctrine. Technically, ALL of US are sinners. All of us are judged by our actions and whats in our heart.

You may have been indoctrinated with such inhumane and depraved ideas about human nature, but that doesn't make it true. ANY human being, especially children, can be manipulated into feeling shame based on nothing they have actually done or anything about them at all. This is the basis of religious shaming. There is no inherent "guilt" or "sin" or other such bullshit. We're complex, highly intelligent social mammals and we are part of a vast and possibly incomprehensible universe. That's all you can say for sure. Cultures throughout history have all had their own origin stories and folklore about the nature of human existence. The one you were taught just happens to be particularly inhumane and depraved.

ALL of US are judged by OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, if we are judged at all. I've never seen God judge anyone and neither have you. But we've all seen HUMAN BEINGS judge each other. We may suck at it sometimes and often we don't know about someone's wrongdoing, but we are the only ones who judge each other.

Every single case of pervert pastors abusing children or other abuses where they were held accountable, it was OTHER HUMAN BEINGS who judged their actions as wrongdoing and held them accountable, if they were ever held accountable at all. And often is it secular society that has to step in and stop the abuse because religious doctrine tends to create communities that do not question authority figures, that believe the myth that God will stop the abuse, that are willing to blame victims, and so sometimes abusive authority figures go unaccountable until more human beings find out and eventually hold them accountable. OTHER. HUMAN. BEINGS.

...3. Doubt is a sin. Questioning God or the human authority figures or the authorized religious texts is, at best, strongly frowned upon. (Seriously, try this out. Ask some hard questions of "liberal" Christians and see just how quickly that claim to be open to questioning turns to anger and defensiveness.) The very things that might have the power to mitigate authoritarianism and extremism, critical thinking and willingness to question anything, including authority figures and texts, are specifically not allowed. Even the most supposedly open minded Christian communities have very short limits on actual questioning.

Again, this is not orthodoxy. Blind acceptance of dogma presented by people who cant rationally justify that dogma is NOT theologically sound. Nor is it mandated by scripture.
The bible tells me to test all things...to beware of other/vain philosophies.
Beware of = Be Aware of.

IF ONLY such lip service had the power to mitigate all the visceral messages that hijack fear and prejudice. IF ONLY.

...4. The group identity. The religious identity is more valuable than the human identity. The most basic group identity a human being can hold is simply being human. Understanding this helps to see the world as "we are all in this together" and not really separate.

True. And I would argue that where the bible says..."For God so loved The World" that this means everyone.
The Gospel is intended for ALL nations.

Yet no human being could ever possibly know about this unless OTHER HUMAN BEINGS tell them about it. God is a story. At least, the Christian God is a story, as well as most, if not all, other God stories human beings have invented.

... But, again, just point out to a Christian that the label "Christian" is only a human construct and couldn't possibly equate to God his own self, and they will likely agree it's just a label and not god. Then ask them if they are willing to drop the label or even condemn the label in order to take power away from ordinary human tribalistic behavior that Christianity has consistently brought to the world throughout its history, which surely is not God the Almighty but human fallibility, and they will not be able to separate the tribal label from their self righteous belief in a supposedly morally superior God.

See Luke 15:7 (1 lost sheep or 99 saved?) See Galatians 3:28. (There is neither Jew nor Gentile) See Luke 10:30 (The Good Samaritan / Who is my neighbor)

Why would I give a shit what a book written by humans says? Like every other scriptural religion, those are ideas that cannot exist without human beings thinking them up and writing them down to varying levels of factuality.

...I could go on if anyone is interested...

Yes I am.

Okie doke, in a subsequent post.

...I think just these basics make it clear that in order for Christianity to become something that actually reinforces and inspires human goodness and not reinforce our stupidest and meanest animal brain behaviors, you'd have to reform it into something that no longer resembles Christianity, and Christianity is an ideological virus that is well equipped to stick around.

It is said - partly with a dose of deliberate irony - that Jesus came to bring us the Kingdom of God and all we got was the church. I think you are right call out the misalignment between the human goodness which Jesus reinforces and inspires - that which is in the Prodigal son's DNA - and the ugly opposite we see in stupid, mean, sinful behaviour. And I think you are right that its a matter of "reform". But as Jesus said, reform starts with removing the log from our own eye.

You can make up any scripture or interpretation that appeals to your animal brain urges and ego and fears and desires and satisfying to your established beliefs, and there is nothing within Christianity that has the power to mitigate stupid, mean, ugly behavior. If you're not stupid, mean, or ugly in your actions or your regard for your fellow human beings, then congrats, your ordinary humanness is morally superior to Christianity and/or you simply have not been exposed to the environment or conditions that can bring out any latent stupidity and meanness in you in lieu of the skills and defenses that might mitigate bad behavior and zealotry.

Ordinary ignorance is morally neutral, but it's fertile ground for just about anything to grow in it if you're unaware of what's good to grow and what's not. Without certain care and maintenance, any monster weed or poison can grow there, like in the absence of critical thinking skills (as in small children) any religious mumbo jumbo convoluted fear mongering can easily grow.

Also, while it's true that humans tend to criticize others before themselves, just the fact that someone is criticizing you or your beliefs doesn't mean they should not call you out for it or become perfect themselves before they should speak up about atrocious and inhumane ideology.

...At best, the most liberal strains of Christianity are merely latent or dormant until the all too common conditions arise for it to blossom into its fullest destructive, inhumane nature.

Religion itself is a human artifact. It is neither God nor a human being, and thus needs no protection or defense and has no rights. There is no reason not to honestly and rigorously question any aspect of it. Your humanness is much more real and valuable than a stupid religious identity.

Agreed.

Under the right conditions, you would have no problem seeing me punished or killed by some self righteous authority figure in your ideological group.

You can't name one good thing that a human can say or do that can't be said or done without religion, but you can name a thousand terrible, inhumane, evil things said or done because of religion. (I believe it is Christopher Hitchens that I am paraphrasing here.)

I think you should answer that question or shut the fuck up with your moralizing and preaching and promotion of inhumane, irrational, and ghoulish beliefs.

 

[Angry Floof]

A quick side note on religious ideas that reinforce behavior in human beings. The Friends, probably better known by their nickname, Quakers, diverge from most other denominations of Christianity on a very fundamental level, meaning some basic, core beliefs are valued that are widely considered heretical by mainstream Christians, Catholic and Protestant. Two very important values strongly held by Quakers are one, pacifism, and two, respect for autonomy. These two values go a long way in mitigating the tendency for ignorance, conflict, and authoritarianism to arise out of Christian sects and denominations.

The Quaker faith is based in pacifism. Non-violence is instilled in them as strongly as the belief that a literal Jesus was born of a virgin and was also God himself as well as God's son and whose pretend death in the form of human sacrifice literally saves everyone from eternity in hell if they believe this story.

And non-violence is much more difficult to instill than messages of burning for eternity if you don't believe the correct magical, ghoulish story. Violence is easy. Any baboon can be violent, especially in frightening conditions. The level of commitment to non-violence that the Quakers hold requires mindfulness, self reflection, and self control.

Most of Christendom is riddled with the language of war and violence, and we see a lot of Christians happy to threaten or commit violence against whoever the authority figure says is the enemy. That takes no conscience or human goodness at all.

But even more important than non-violence is the reverence for autonomy. No Quaker tells anyone else what to believe about God, not even their children. They are adamant that everyone must interpret the divine on their own, even if it appears they never do. I can't imagine a Quaker parent disowning their children for not believing. The idea is abhorrent to them. But not so abhorrent to mainstream Christians. Not all, of course. As I've been saying, there are plenty of liberal Christians whose humanity is morally superior to the religion they subscribe to, many of them very concerned about the common practice of rejecting children for being gay or atheist or whatever mortal sin their parents believe in and value more than their children.

Can you imagine mainstream religion, Catholic or Protestant, proclaiming that no one can tell anyone else about what God is? There may be some lip service to this among the quieter, liberal churches, but yet they still, you know, teach and preach about what God is. And the evangelicals, well, it's right their in their denomination name that they would do no such thing as stop telling people what to believe!

Oh, there's a third Quaker value I should mention - they're not big on authority figures. They allow anyone to lead a church meeting if they want. To them, "authority" means someone who serves the community, not someone who is in charge of anyone but themselves.

 

[Learner]

Religion invested with political power is toxic and homicidal. The holy books prescribe execution for all manner of offenses -- prominently in the Bible and Quran, for heresy -- so, in the West, we're lucky to see this phenomenon in the rear-view mirror. (Our brand new SCOTUS -- now with the power of extra Catholicism, may prove me wrong.)

Political power doesn't neccesarily require a religion to be a (toxic) power ...unless that agenda needs the religious masses in control or for them (in power) to be portrayed under some guise for their (the faith folk) misguided support. Test the so-called religious leaders, politicians or teachers in what ever agenda is aimed for ....by their fruits (as it's written). If it's not anything resembling what Jesus commands (advantage to ordinary folk) then I would agree with you, there'd be sumink a little iffy of the "believer" and what he believes.

Christianity (i.e. according to gospels) is the least of your problems it seems at the moment, whereas World Politics IS!

 

[Angry Floof]

Religion invested with political power is toxic and homicidal. The holy books prescribe execution for all manner of offenses -- prominently in the Bible and Quran, for heresy -- so, in the West, we're lucky to see this phenomenon in the rear-view mirror. (Our brand new SCOTUS -- now with the power of extra Catholicism, may prove me wrong.)

Political power doesn't neccesarily require a religion to be a (toxic) power ...unless that agenda needs the religious masses in control or for them (in power) to be portrayed under some guise for their (the faith folk) misguided support. Test the so-called religious leaders, politicians or teachers in what ever agenda is aimed for ....by their fruits (as it's written). If it's not anything resembling what Jesus commands then I would agree with you, there'd be sumink a little iffy of the "believer" and what he believes.

Christianity (i.e. according to gospels) is the least of your problems it seems at the moment, whereas World Politics IS!

Right wing political ideology will always appeal to the religious. There will always be a huge overlap, but especially in times of unrest. Fear is the basis of both religion and right wing politics. This should be obvious by now.

 

[Learner]

Religion invested with political power is toxic and homicidal. The holy books prescribe execution for all manner of offenses -- prominently in the Bible and Quran, for heresy -- so, in the West, we're lucky to see this phenomenon in the rear-view mirror. (Our brand new SCOTUS -- now with the power of extra Catholicism, may prove me wrong.)

Political power doesn't neccesarily require a religion to be a (toxic) power ...unless that agenda needs the religious masses in control or for them (in power) to be portrayed under some guise for their (the faith folk) misguided support. Test the so-called religious leaders, politicians or teachers in what ever agenda is aimed for ....by their fruits (as it's written). If it's not anything resembling what Jesus commands then I would agree with you, there'd be sumink a little iffy of the "believer" and what he believes.

Christianity (i.e. according to gospels) is the least of your problems it seems at the moment, whereas World Politics IS!

Right wing political ideology will always appeal to the religious. There will always be a huge overlap, but especially in times of unrest. Fear is the basis of both religion and right wing politics. This should be obvious by now.

I am aware these things happen but as a Christian (and I'm sure like many others) I don't share the same ideologies.

 

[Angry Floof]

Right wing political ideology will always appeal to the religious. There will always be a huge overlap, but especially in times of unrest. Fear is the basis of both religion and right wing politics. This should be obvious by now.

I am aware these things happen but as a Christian (and I'm sure like many others) I don't share the same ideologies.

Then why call yourself a Christian? If you're so aware, surely you understand that the social club aspect of organized religion is what gives it power over a society. It doesn't matter how individual heads in that club differ. Frankly, most don't actually believe at all. It's a tribal group regardless of level of belief or what specific things are going on in the individual heads. The power is in the numbers of people wearing the label and identifying with others who wear that label.

Everyone has group identities, but it's mainly just religion and certain right wing ideologies (nationalism, white supremacy, for example) that become zealous and think of their group as in opposition to the rest of the world. And religions like Christianity and Islam specifically reinforce the group identity as the most important identity, more important than the one we actually all share without exception: human.

When the group identity is valued more than humanity, or considered a more true and fundamental definition of the self, you can't expect such groups to remain peaceful for long. The conflict is built in.

Have the courage to condemn the label and organized religion if your world view and regard for humanity truly humane and decent.

 

[Rhea]

So, please tell me what can we atheists offer a person like my very poor friend? Where is the community that will take in a poor woman who has never had an opportunity for higher education, who has likely suffered from some degree of racism, who can barely pay her bills, etc. What the fuck do we atheists have to offer her? I think that secular humanism tried to be a secular religion, but that didn't work out too well.

I feel like it doesn’t have to say, “Brought to You By Atheists” in order to be either good or from Atheists. I do feel like the religionists dismiss us because we don’t shout for credit for everything we do.

Atheists aree behind many good acts and good organizations whose names do not reveal their atheism. The Southern Poverty Law Center might have many atheists in it. Meels on Wheels might have many atheists in it. Western Slope Food Bank. Planned Parenthood. Doctors without Borders. Seniors Book Club.


The religionists say that we never do anything to help, because we don’t spend time self advertising.

But we who do all of the above, and we who fight to make sure that elderly woman has Social Security and Medicaid and Social Workers.

What do we have to offer? Many and varied programs that don’t make her acknowledge OUR relligion in order to get it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

What hits me in this discussion is the balance sheet for science. Here is what man has done for himself, by concentrating his powers of observation, measurement, and critical thinking (the opposite, that is, of shamanism and orthodoxy):

agriculture
genetics
water purification
central heating
electricity
renewable energy
fuel cells
metallurgy
automobile
jumbo jet
Apollo 11
Hubble Space Telescope
electronics
telecommunication
computer systems
internet
periodic table
plastics
synthetic fibers
photography
sound recording
cinema
painkillers
x rays
germ theory
ABO blood group system
vaccines
penicillin
eradication of smallpox
prevention of polio
laser surgery
laparoscopic surgery
human genome
stem cell therapy

Forgive me for truncating the list of The Brain's Greatest Hits by a factor of -- who knows.
What do the Great Religions of Man have to boast about beside a 90% cure rate for childhood leukemia?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What hits me in this discussion is the balance sheet for science. Here is what man has done for himself, by concentrating his powers of observation, measurement, and critical thinking (the opposite, that is, of shamanism and orthodoxy):

agriculture
genetics
water purification
central heating
electricity
renewable energy
fuel cells
metallurgy
automobile
jumbo jet
Apollo 11
Hubble Space Telescope
electronics
telecommunication
computer systems
internet
periodic table
plastics
synthetic fibers
photography
sound recording
cinema
painkillers
x rays
germ theory
ABO blood group system
vaccines
penicillin
eradication of smallpox
prevention of polio
laser surgery
laparoscopic surgery
human genome
stem cell therapy

Forgive me for truncating the list of The Brain's Greatest Hits by a factor of -- who knows.
What do the Great Religions of Man have to boast about beside a 90% cure rate for childhood leukemia?

It's very mysterious, isn't it?

This message brought to you by all loyalists, followers and practitioners of woo.

 

[southernhybrid]

So, please tell me what can we atheists offer a person like my very poor friend? Where is the community that will take in a poor woman who has never had an opportunity for higher education, who has likely suffered from some degree of racism, who can barely pay her bills, etc. What the fuck do we atheists have to offer her? I think that secular humanism tried to be a secular religion, but that didn't work out too well.

I feel like it doesn’t have to say, “Brought to You By Atheists” in order to be either good or from Atheists. I do feel like the religionists dismiss us because we don’t shout for credit for everything we do.

Atheists aree behind many good acts and good organizations whose names do not reveal their atheism. The Southern Poverty Law Center might have many atheists in it. Meels on Wheels might have many atheists in it. Western Slope Food Bank. Planned Parenthood. Doctors without Borders. Seniors Book Club.


The religionists say that we never do anything to help, because we don’t spend time self advertising.

But we who do all of the above, and we who fight to make sure that elderly woman has Social Security and Medicaid and Social Workers.

What do we have to offer? Many and varied programs that don’t make her acknowledge OUR relligion in order to get it.

I agree that lots of individual atheists do good things. In fact, the poor woman who I mentioned in an earlier post, receives help from me once in awhile. She has no idea I'm an atheist, but I understand how important her religion is to her. Imo, to try to talk her into giving it up would be pointless and cruel. Her religion offers her community and hope. Hope is almost always a delusion, but it's something that humans often need. When I said, what do we have to offer, I was thinking along the lines of an organization that gives a person hope and community. We aren't very good at that. Plus, I despise the idea that we should try to convince others that we are right and they are wrong. People should do their own investigations if they are interested. I think it's good to be openly atheist whenever appropriate. I think it's wrong to evangelize atheism. Now, if someone comes here or if someone is interested in knowing why we are atheists etc., that's not a problem. I'd rather try to set a good example instead of arguing with someone who has different beliefs than mine.

Atheists have worked well with liberal Christians throughout the history of the US. For example, Frederick Douglas, the former slave, was a liberal Christian who worked with some atheist women who supported the abolitionist movement. Atheist women also worked with liberal Christians to help women get the vote. So, my point is that we aren't much different from the more liberal theists. They just embrace some of the better aspects of religious mythology. Imo, there is a huge difference between the liberal theistic religions and the fundamentalists ones. I don't like it when people try to see them as all the same. To me, liberal theism is just one step away from agnosticism or atheism. Plus, there are atheist Christians, atheist Jews, and while he rarely posts here, we have an atheist Hindu member of TFT.

Religion is just one of countless things that humans have invented.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I should kneel down and pray to the memory of my old eighth grade basketball coach, the first person to nudge me toward scientific naturalism and eventually atheism. It was he who overheard one of our group remark that he would pray that evening that we played a good enough game to win tomorrow. Coach remarked that if instead of praying we went out and spent that time actually practicing our game, we'd play better and therefore have a much better chance of winning the game. We were all quite surprised to hear our Coach put prayer second. Thanks, Coach!

But that's what we all do anyway, some of us just don't acknowledge it.

 

[Angry Floof]

Just a note: When you say "atheist," you're just saying "human being."

We can say a lot about people within ideological groups and what we might expect from them given what we might know about that ideology and its history. It doesn't mean they're all the same or would behave the same, but there's a lot you can guess or expect due to knowing about their ideology and (hopefully you know) how that ideology influences their choices and actions.

"Atheist" just means someone who doesn't have religious influences on their choices and actions. We all have ideological influences, but with atheists, you'd get a better idea of them if you look at their other ideologies such as their politics or other philosophy/ideology they profess such as humanism.

Even when it comes to criticism of religious beliefs, you can't generalize atheists. The world is full of atheists who never say a word about religion.

 

[abaddon]

Imo, to try to talk her into giving it up would be pointless and cruel. Her religion offers her community and hope.

We might be mixing up a hope for a secular world with directly deconverting people. The world might benefit being wholly secular... maybe. But it's a toss-up if it benefits some particular individuals to "deconvert" them.

I have a good friend who suffers horribly from the hope for heaven. She loved her mom, and since her mom died she's been anticipating seeing her again in heaven. But, she's not sure... And it very visibly torments her. She'd have been FAR better off to have said a final Goodbye and mourned her mom then moved on. But she's stuck in mourning instead thanks to a superstitious hope.

I agree it'd be cruel to try to deconvert the lady you're talking about. I wish I could do it for the lady I'm talking about though. It depends on the different cases.

In some cases it'd only be petty trying to "deconvert" persons because it's a lesser cause than some other causes.

I'm thinking of the example of a Catholic priest who helped inspire the "greening of religion". The late Thomas Berry. His impact for good in the world is big-enough to be notable, and for the greatest social justice cause of them all - environmentalism. He said he's a "geologian" not a "theologian", and suggested Christians put their Bibles away for twenty years and pay close attention to earth instead. His effort to shift culture away from seeing humans as earth's masters is, IMV, a much greater cause than irreligion. Now, it's true what he did is in contravention to traditional religion and in response to science. He had to not only advocate a change in our rapacious culture, but was suggesting religious people be less ridiculous.

Still, given that religion's there and a huge motivating force for a lot of people, encouraging change in it is a more realistic goal than getting rid of it. "Liberal religionists" like Berry would be better seen as allies than as "part of the problem".

And I've got this image of some secular activist who's done nothing remotely comparable for the earth, trying to deconvert someone who's done much more good in the world. Probably such activist should listen and learn instead. Not to pick up on the religion**, but because the "greening of secularism" is no less needed than the "greening of religion".

** I said "not to pick up on religion"... though maybe, just maybe, there is value in religiosity. It motivates. southernhybrid mentioned earlier the value of mythology, if it's not taken literally. Berry was suggesting our modern myths be science-based: to see "The Great Work" (evolution) as the epic we're part of. A message along the lines of "there's nothing good in your religion" is rather a shit message compared against "be religious about what's real instead of what's fantastical".

 

[abaddon]

"Atheist" just means someone who doesn't have religious influences on their choices and actions.

This is incorrect too because there are religious atheists in the world.

This is the problem of conflating religion with theism and especially Christian theism, it leads to conflating atheism and irreligion.

The term "atheism" cannot mean anything else than disbelief in gods because any other definition excludes atheists from atheism.

Disbelief in gods doesn't obviate all religion. Religion and theism are not synonyms. There are nontheistic and naturalistic religions in the world.

 

[rousseau]

I don't think doing away with religion is necessarily a bad thing, but to think that rationalism is good and just is wishful thinking. If people aren't exploited with religion, they'll be exploited with science. How many people working at Facebook, for example, are atheists? Facebook as an organization has done enormous damage to the future of the U.S.

A world without religion is still a self-interested, exploitative world, and with the benefit of science this exploitation can become even more powerful. We really need to do away with the idea that science as a process is morally good.

 

[Angry Floof]

"Atheist" just means someone who doesn't have religious influences on their choices and actions.

This is incorrect too because there are religious atheists in the world.

This is the problem of conflating religion with theism and especially Christian theism. Thinking atheism is the opposite of all that, it leads to conflating atheism and irreligion.

The term "atheism" cannot mean anything else than disbelief in deities, because ANY other definition excludes atheists from atheism.

Disbelief in deities doesn't obviate all religion. Religion and theism are not synonyms, there are nontheistic and naturalistic religions in the world.

Good point. I forgot about religious atheists. But atheists, being non-believers in gods, are more likely to be skeptics and seekers rather than adherents to an ideological identity to the extent that god believers so often are.