Religion sucks

[Angry Floof]

To the comments about "doing away with" religion, I would say religion will have to do away with itself through human minds and societies changing. Religion arises from our own subconscious minds, psychology, culture, and social behaviors, most of which is invisible to us. You think you can "do away" with human nature? You can promote education and skepticism, though, and continue to point out the toxic nature of organized religion, etc. There's no guarantee the stupider religions will ever go away considering the immense power of animal brain, social influence, subconscious urges, and cognitive pitfalls that give rise to religion in the first place, but it's very possible that humanity can rise above such tendencies by becoming more knowledgeable and aware of ourselves.

 

[Atheos]

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

Technically speaking, "God" doesn't command anything. That's because there aren't any gods. There are only the sayings and writings of human beings claiming to speak in behalf of some god or other. It is those people command things or demand certain thought patterns.

As an example, whoever wrote the New Testament book of Hebrews said,

Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please him. For he that cometh to god must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

So no, that's not a direct command from "god," but whoever wrote it is essentially commanding all practitioners of this religion to believe before all else. With this in mind it really doesn't matter how you act if you don't believe in "god." For the purveyors of religion it's what you think that's important.

 

[Brian63]

Her religion offers her community and hope.

SH, fundamentalist varieties of religion also do that exact same thing for many people---they provide their members community and hope. Yet that fact did not stop you earlier from acknowledging that fundamentalist religions suck. So apparently religious beliefs can do both---provide community and hope to people as well as “suck” by doing harm to them. You have been making points that zig-zag all around and contradict each other.

If you still agree that fundamentalist religious beliefs can offer community and hope, while still also “sucking,” then we are not far apart. I just extend that same concept to more moderate and liberal religious beliefs too. They can offer hope and community, while doing harm and “sucking” in other ways. They can harm the religious member themselves (without them being aware of it even). They can harm you. They can harm other people besides you or them. They can harm other forms of life.

As soon as we see that a person’s religious beliefs offer them community and hope, that should not be a notice to back off. Because those very same religious beliefs can also do harm to numerous people and life, in a wide variety of ways. We need to weigh both the good and the bad, not count only the good and ignore the bad.

Plus, I despise the idea that we should try to convince others that we are right and they are wrong.

Do you feel the same way when it comes to political issues? Ethical issues? Mask-wearing and social distancing for public health purposes? Scientific issues?

As long as we live in a world that is very interconnected and where our beliefs and behaviors influence each other to a great extent, it makes a lot of sense to care about what other people believe and to want to be proactive and advance change. Not simply passively hope that it comes around.

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.

How about freethinking and rationality? When our society is filled with people who make ignorant, bigoted, irresponsible statements and decisions that do damage to us, why not point out the errors in their thinking that led to them making those errors?

The term “evangelize” has a connotation of being religious, and since atheists here presumably want to distance themselves from religion would likewise shy away from saying they are “evangelizing” atheism. So let’s pick another label instead, even if the concept is the same. Should we “promote” other causes like LBGTQ rights, resistance to climate change, social distancing and mask wearing to combat COVID, etc.? If you believe in those causes, and there are other people who oppose you on them, why not have discussion about them which also happens to involve you trying to change their mind? You would think their mind is in error, so by changing it in a direction you think is more correct you are actually doing the world a favor. By not doing so, and letting bad beliefs persist, you are allowing for a lot of harm to persist.

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.

Who exactly is doing that? You and I have exchanged back and forth in this thread, and that is not my view. You would be misrepresenting my position if you were attributing that to me. My real position is not that they are the same, but that they still have some important elements in common.

 

[Angry Floof]

Community and comfort (and anything else humans need) can be had without religion.

 

[abaddon]

How about freethinking and rationality? When our society is filled with people who make ignorant, bigoted, irresponsible statements and decisions that do damage to us, why not point out the errors in their thinking that led to them making those errors?

This is an important idea. The problem with the superstitious is how poorly educated they are. If there are ways to encourage them to step out of the bubble and learn rather than cling to old myths, that can only be good for everyone.

But I don't see why it must be framed as trying to make secular believers of the whole world. Why not just talk about better education in critical thinking and scientific literacy? And stick to "secularism" as the separation of state and religious institutions?

Why add the evangelical ardor for a wholly "secular" world? The difference that makes a difference is the interest in learning.

The language you use in your posts sounds like you want to obviate the choice - to make religious not optional anymore. For some reason, with you, I'm reminded how theists wish atheism would go away so that the reminder "that's what could happen to me" would go away.

 

[skepticalbip]

This is an important idea. The problem with the superstitious is how poorly educated they are. If there are ways to encourage them to step out of the bubble and learn rather than cling to old myths, that can only be good for everyone.

I would disagree with this generalization. Humans are much more complicated. Some highly educated (even in the sciences) can and do hold religious beliefs. It's called compartmentalization. I have worked with some quite brilliant physicists who I was surprised to find after a good while over beers after work that they held religious beliefs.

But I don't see why it must be framed as trying to make secular believers of the whole world. Why not just talk about better education in critical thinking and scientific literacy? And stick to "secularism" as the separation of state and religious institutions?

...Definitely...

 

[Bomb#20]

Faith is the foundation of religion. Faith sucks.

Faith, a belief held without the support of evidence, sucks because it permits any sort of unjustified or absurd belief to flourish.

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

Yes. For example, in post after post, you keep giving every sign of taking the Labor Theory of Value on faith. It's a species of creationism.

"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.

Exactly right. The world is overflowing with atheists who imagine their atheism means they aren't religious. It's like listening to 5th-century Christians going on about how superstitious all those pagans were who still believed in the Roman gods.

This endless focus on the problems caused by Christianity and the merits of actively trying to do away with it is misplaced. Christianity is a religion in decline. Whether we go with the New Atheists or the Non-overlapping Magisteria, it's going to die a natural death as its believers age without replacing themselves. This will not change the suckiness of religion; it will only change which religions are doing the prevailing sucking. Some of the rising religions will be theistic, and some will not, and both kinds will suck just as Christianity sucked.

 

[DBT]

Yes. For example, in post after post, you keep giving every sign of taking the Labor Theory of Value on faith. It's a species of creationism.
.

Not true. You must have misread or misunderstood. I supported what I said, providing stats, examples, the history of the labour movement, unionized workplaces achieving better pay and conditions for workers, etc...which, unlike faith, is evidence for what I say. You may not agree, but history paints the picture and changing conditions within the workplace tells the story. If there is evidence, it is not faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"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.

"Atheist" IS a religious word. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion, which is why I don't like the word. It generalizes every god as being the same thing, which is very wrong, religiously speaking. I like "Human Being."

 

[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, 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.

"Atheist" IS a religious word. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion, which is why I don't like the word. It generalizes every god as being the same thing, which is very wrong, religiously speaking. I like "Human Being."

So do I. "Atheist" doesn't mean anything to me until the subject of religion comes up. It's not my identity as a human being. It only describes one small part of how I view the world. I may have a lot in common with a lot of other atheists in my world view, but that's really only because we have no god concepts distorting our view and a lot of us hang out together in real life and online. We're bound to influence each other's views.

If the religionists can't understand this and need some kind of "ism" to put me in the correct compartment in their heads, then I just say call me a humanist. Human being isn't good enough for the religionists I know because their "ism" teaches them than our humanness is shit and sinful and worthless and inferior to their tribal label.

Also, on a freethought site like this one, you're going to hear people identify as atheist. Doesn't mean it's an important identifier for us.

 

[abaddon]

"Atheist" IS a religious word. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion, which is why I don't like the word. It generalizes every god as being the same thing, which is very wrong, religiously speaking. I like "Human Being."

So do I. "Atheist" doesn't mean anything to me until the subject of religion comes up. It's not my identity as a human being. It only describes one small part of how I view the world. I may have a lot in common with a lot of other atheists in my world view, but that's really only because we have no god concepts distorting our view and a lot of us hang out together in real life and online. We're bound to influence each other's views.

If the religionists can't understand this and need some kind of "ism" to put me in the correct compartment in their heads, then I just say call me a humanist. Human being isn't good enough for the religionists I know because their "ism" teaches them than our humanness is shit and sinful and worthless and inferior to their tribal label.

Also, on a freethought site like this one, you're going to hear people identify as atheist. Doesn't mean it's an important identifier for us.

Yes to all that.

Still, that we people who do not believe in other's gods are good people and can capably hold a political office, make a good person to date, etc, is a point that has to be made.

It's an odd situation to be in. On the one hand, "coming out" and making it known we're here is important for being accepted by society and that's going to look like declaring "this is our identity". On the other, it doesn't describe much about atheists, it's thoroughly a 'negative' message - "your god-belief isn't necessary to being a good human".

 

[Angry Floof]

"Atheist" IS a religious word. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion, which is why I don't like the word. It generalizes every god as being the same thing, which is very wrong, religiously speaking. I like "Human Being."

So do I. "Atheist" doesn't mean anything to me until the subject of religion comes up. It's not my identity as a human being. It only describes one small part of how I view the world. I may have a lot in common with a lot of other atheists in my world view, but that's really only because we have no god concepts distorting our view and a lot of us hang out together in real life and online. We're bound to influence each other's views.

If the religionists can't understand this and need some kind of "ism" to put me in the correct compartment in their heads, then I just say call me a humanist. Human being isn't good enough for the religionists I know because their "ism" teaches them than our humanness is shit and sinful and worthless and inferior to their tribal label.

Also, on a freethought site like this one, you're going to hear people identify as atheist. Doesn't mean it's an important identifier for us.

Yes to all that.

Still, that people who don't believe in god are good people and can capably hold a political office, make a good spouse, etc, is a point that has to be made.

Yep, and objection to religion in schools, etc., is imperative.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Atheist and agnostic are labels for persons who have a particular religious opinion. So what about people who don't have an opinion, aren't even bothered thinking about it?

If I have no opinion on crystals, what's my label? There's an Oak tree in my side yard, what should I call it with regard to crystals? Is it a "None."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm doing a very poor job of explaining myself on the subject. The next time the subject of religion comes up I think I'll just say I'm a human being and a scientific naturalist.

Is the practice of woo something natural? Of course it is, it's just not scientific. Someone who is scientific might still do certain things because these things are comforting, but realizes it's just emotional, feels lucky in a sense. That's just being superstitious, another behavior that is constantly selected for/against.

Humans have hobbies and interests outside strict scientific purview. Maybe we like having a crystal or a pet rock on our dresser. Go for it. Just don't think it's going to cure cancer. Understand the evolved need for these behaviors scientifically, take advantage of the benefits. Know what you are trying to do with your life. Know that pet rock veneration isn't going to get you to pet rock heaven but enjoy your pet rock nonetheless.

 

[southernhybrid]

How about freethinking and rationality? When our society is filled with people who make ignorant, bigoted, irresponsible statements and decisions that do damage to us, why not point out the errors in their thinking that led to them making those errors?

This is an important idea. The problem with the superstitious is how poorly educated they are. If there are ways to encourage them to step out of the bubble and learn rather than cling to old myths, that can only be good for everyone.

But I don't see why it must be framed as trying to make secular believers of the whole world. Why not just talk about better education in critical thinking and scientific literacy? And stick to "secularism" as the separation of state and religious institutions?

Why add the evangelical ardor for a wholly "secular" world? The difference that makes a difference is the interest in learning.

The language you use in your posts sounds like you want to obviate the choice - to make religious not optional anymore. For some reason, with you, I'm reminded how theists wish atheism would go away so that the reminder "that's what could happen to me" would go away.

Poorly educated? Do you realize that most doctors and nurses in the US are theists, and a lot of them are conservative Christians?. Some of the doctors where I live do missionary work when they are able to take a few months off. I'm not talking about trying to convert people to their beliefs, I'm taking about going into poor areas to offer medical care and advice. An atheist friend of mine once told me about some of the doctors who visit the hospice where she was the social worker about all the work that some of these local doctors do that is inspired by their religious beliefs. She was very impressed with what they were doing and said that she certainly couldn't judge them based on their religious beliefs.

I've only known one atheist doctor locally, and she told me that she would never openly admit that she was an atheist. I'm not sure where you get the impression that religious people are poorly educated. Sure, some are, but so are some atheists.

I think that a lot of people are able to think critically when it comes to most things in life, but not when it comes to religion. My own mother was like that. She wasn't highly educated, but when it came to politics and anything but religion, she was quite thoughtful and rational. Still, she was able to believe some of the nuttiest things when it came to religion. I once tried to deconvert my sister, thinking I was doing her a favor. Wrong! I ended up with her being very upset and now I can't even mention religion without her becoming upset with me. People have to do their own investigations if they have doubts about their beliefs. If they' don't have doubts and are happy, it's best to respect their right to believe what works for them, imo. My Christian friends don't try to bring me back to Jesus and I don't try to tell them that the Bible is a book of myths. We should all try to keep religion out of politics, but that's an entirely different story. My Baptist parents were happy when prayer was taken out of the schools back when I was young. Why? Because they realized that a time could come when some religion other than Christianity could be mainstream, and they didn't want the school telling their children what to believe. Too bad, so many Christians don't see it that way today.

I just don't believe in trying to convince people that they are wrong unless they are seeking and open minded. This is true of politics as well. It's almost impossible to try and talk a person out of supporting a politicians who you know is harmful. I used to enjoy having political arguments, but not once did anyone I spoke to, regardless of the evidence that I presented, ever change their mind. My highly educated brother in law is a Trump supporter. MY husband has found it futile to try and talk him out of supporting Trump. His support has nothing to do with religion. At best, he's a cultural Catholic who never goes to church and probably rarely thinks about religion. You can't change people unless they are openly seeking change.

 

[abaddon]

This is an important idea. The problem with the superstitious is how poorly educated they are. If there are ways to encourage them to step out of the bubble and learn rather than cling to old myths, that can only be good for everyone.

But I don't see why it must be framed as trying to make secular believers of the whole world. Why not just talk about better education in critical thinking and scientific literacy? And stick to "secularism" as the separation of state and religious institutions?

Why add the evangelical ardor for a wholly "secular" world? The difference that makes a difference is the interest in learning.

The language you use in your posts sounds like you want to obviate the choice - to make religious not optional anymore. For some reason, with you, I'm reminded how theists wish atheism would go away so that the reminder "that's what could happen to me" would go away.

Poorly educated? Do you realize that most doctors and nurses in the US are theists, and a lot of them are conservative Christians?....

Yep. It was a mistaken sentence. Thanks to all who pointed out the error, I stand corrected on that one sentence in that one post.

 

[abaddon]

I've thought more on it and I don't agree with the notion that people think well but just not about their religion. IMO it's more the case that everyone's poorly educated in thinking regardless what degree they earn.

An atheist friend of mine once told me... about all the work that some of these local doctors do that is inspired by their religious beliefs.

No argument on that point. I've made it plain in my posts that I'm not interested in joining the quest to "deconvert" all religious people, and I've said I consider religion as sometimes a motivation for great things.

I am however interested in people having enough critical thinking ability to not take up superstitions and conspiracy theories and fail to detect lies.

I think that a lot of people are able to think critically when it comes to most things in life, but not when it comes to religion.

My experience of people differs. I run a business that involves "meeting the people" and find they're extremely scam-prone (not by me but some con artists among my competition). They're not just ignorant but opinionated as hell, and it's a near-constant problem because I have to negotiate around their dumb opinions even just to help them not fuck themselves over.

Whatever degrees they do or don't hold, their education was not complete.

It's not just ignorance that fucks them up (both high-school dropouts and doctors and all). And it's not religion either - that correlates with, but doesn't cause, what I'm describing. There are the admirable ones who'll admit "I don't know much about this". But there are FAR more of the stubbornly-opinionated ones who aren't open to learning. They damage their own lives and other folks' lives by being like that.

My Baptist parents were happy when prayer was taken out of the schools back when I was young. Why? Because they realized that a time could come when some religion other than Christianity could be mainstream, and they didn't want the school telling their children what to believe. Too bad, so many Christians don't see it that way today.

Too bad everyone doesn't see it that way. This is why I support secularism only in the sense of CSS. I don't want anyone told what the truth about reality is, I want them able to explore reality themselves and not get bound up into ANY of the beliefs on offer in society without careful consideration first. But they need to know how to think to do that, and having a degree in a specialty doesn't guarantee it.

My highly educated brother in law is a Trump supporter. MY husband has found it futile to try and talk him out of supporting Trump. His support has nothing to do with religion. At best, he's a cultural Catholic who never goes to church and probably rarely thinks about religion. You can't change people unless they are openly seeking change.

Not being able to convince people of good ideas unless they're open to it is why I'm looking at education. I'm wondering "how do they get like that?"

My girlfriend is an elementary school teacher. Her preference is teaching the younger kids because they still have their curiosity intact. She'd like to help form their young minds to always stay curious, and hope (against hope) that survives the rest of their education.

 

[Brian63]

But I don't see why it must be framed as trying to make secular believers of the whole world. Why not just talk about better education in critical thinking and scientific literacy?

Because religion is a Mt. Everest of an obstacle in the way of exactly that. Religion has a tendency to suppress critical thinking and scientific literacy, amplifying instead groupthink and scientific ignorance.

And stick to "secularism" as the separation of state and religious institutions?

Because there are far, far, far, far, far more ways than just church/state separation that religion has a harmful influence on people. As explained several times already in this thread:

1. Religion can harm the religious believers themselves, even if those people are oblivious to the damage that is being done to them. If we care about them, then we should also care about minimizing the different sources of that harm---religion being a prominent focus (not the only one, but a very significant one).

2. Religions can harm yourself in ways that are more inconspicuous than blatant legislation promoting theocracy, for example. If you are secretly gay amidst a fundamentalist family, for instance, you can suffer from emotional and psychological trauma. You fear social ostracization if you ever were to come out. This is all even before we get to the issue of gay marriage. This is just you and your family, and has nothing to do with any law. Their fundamentalist religious beliefs still harm you.

3. They can also harm other people besides you, in ways that do not incorporation outright legislation. If instead of you being closeted gay in a fundamentalist family, it was a friend of yours, wouldn’t you care about them enough that you want to have them suffer as little as possible? We also look out for future generations of people who will endure the harmful consequences of the irrational and irresponsible beliefs of people who are alive today. If we care about future generations and their wellbeing, we should be more proactive in reducing the massive harm of religions. Even when that harm does not take the form of just church/state separation.

The language you use in your posts sounds like you want to obviate the choice - to make religious not optional anymore.

No idea where you are getting that strawman from. I want all beliefs to be “optional” including beliefs in magic, space aliens visiting earth, supernatural deities communicating with people on our planet, etc. Everything is optional. We should still have an interest in what other people actually do believe, among their wide variety of options.

 

[Brian63]

southernhybrid---coming back to an earlier matter:

Do you believe that fundamentalist religions do at least sometimes provide their members with a sense of community and purpose?

You earlier effectively complimented moderate religions for doing such a thing. Do you think fundamentalist religions do as well though?

If so, then would you agree that even beliefs that “suck” (like fundamentalist religious beliefs) can still provide a sense of community and purpose. The fact that they provide community and purpose does not mean that they do not suck. They can have some positive attributes, while still overall sucking.

That is my outlook on moderate and liberal religious beliefs. Yes, they have positive characteristics. We should not ignore the negative ones too, however. They can still “suck” even if they do provide people community and purpose.

 

[Angry Floof]

southernhybrid---coming back to an earlier matter:

Do you believe that fundamentalist religions do at least sometimes provide their members with a sense of community and purpose?

It's not the religion that offers community and purpose! Human beings provide those things. Highly intelligent, complex social mammals seek out and create community because that's what we do. Religion is not necessary for that.

Religion has not offered a single good thing to humanity that could not be had without religion.

If some group of fundamentalists has a happy, healthy community somewhere, that's not a credit to their religion. It's a credit to their ordinary humanness.

You earlier effectively complimented moderate religions for doing such a thing. Do you think fundamentalist religions do as well though?

If so, then would you agree that even beliefs that “suck” (like fundamentalist religious beliefs) can still provide a sense of community and purpose. The fact that they provide community and purpose does not mean that they do not suck. They can have some positive attributes, while still overall sucking.

That is my outlook on moderate and liberal religious beliefs. Yes, they have positive characteristics. We should not ignore the negative ones too, however. They can still “suck” even if they do provide people community and purpose.

Once again, religion does not provide anything of the sort. We provide community and purpose to ourselves. All religion does is give it a certain slant or flavor or whatever. It is not the source. We humans and our human tendencies for living in groups and taking care of each other are the source of religion, not the other way around.

Of all the things that can be said about religion, that one point could change the entire world if more people understood it and actually applied it to their understanding of anything related to religion. Religion only shapes or defines or influences us to the extent that we let it, and in the form of however we create any given religion.