Religion sucks

[Brian63]

Are you claiming that some religions have "features" that can't be had without the unfounded beliefs?

There are a few misunderstandings embedded in the question. Let’s try to make this point clear. Briefly---yes, religions versus secular philosophies have some unique traits that they can each offer. That does not make them equally worthwhile though. Certainly I believe the some promises made by religions are false.

Religions and secular philosophies can and do offer features that are unique to them. Heaven, for instance. Does your worldview offer an afterlife of eternal paradise? I am assuming not. Does Christianity? Yes. So in this sense, Christianity does offer something unique and different from what your secular views offer. That does not make their offer better, it just makes it unique. I am hoping that prior sentence gets re-read several times, as it is likely to be a main point of misunderstanding.

Another key point---There are also secular philosophies of life which can provide relief for the existential angsts of people. For instance, seeing our material life as finite and then having no infinite life afterwards can enhance someone’s value of this life and lead to them enjoying it more. That is different, i.e. unique, from how religions view our present life and the afterlife.

Just because a community or culture has a religious nature doesn't make the religion essential to the community or culture being "good" or welcoming or whatever.

You and I are in complete agreement on that point.

It sounds like you are trying to give some kind of benefit to religion when it happens to not be horrible for humans when in fact it's just humans being good with or without religion, or more likely, in spite of the religious "features."

That is a simple strawman. My view is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

To your earlier point, are you claiming that a religious community offers comfort and community to people because it is religious? If so, that is one thing that I am objecting to as nonsense, and probably SH is as well.

No, that is a strawman. Religions offers some features that are unique to it, such as the (unfounded) promise of an eternal blissful afterlife. Religion also offers some features that can also be found in secular views, such as comfort and community.

Whenever we refer to “features” that religions offer and secular views do not in comparison, we should be specific about what the exact features are. If we are talking about a heaven, then yes, religion promises it while secular views (like ours) do not promise a heaven. If we are talking about community and purpose, both religions and secular views can offer that.

"Good" religion is superfluous at best. Valuing and reinforcing aspects of ordinary human goodness doesn't make religion essential.

Agreed. It has never, ever been my point that religion is essential. Throughout this thread I have been advocating that we try to be more openly critical of it, because it does so much damage to us. I would love to see it gone. It is unrealistic that it would ever happen as long as humans are alive, but still every little bit will probably help.


Summary: Religions offer unique traits that secular philosophies do not. Vice versa as well.

I think that statement is being misinterpreted as saying that secular views have nothing to offer as a substitute, or anything else worthwhile, etc. That is a plain misunderstanding. As in the example above, religions commonly promise a heaven of eternal bliss while secular philosophies do not. So they are each unique from each other. Secular philosophies offer alternatives as a substitute to that though, in place of the concept of heaven and which religious people may even find preferable. It is still different and unique from the heaven that their religion offered though.

 

[SLD]

I’m enjoying the debate this thread has generated.

But with respect to so called “Liberal” Christians, in many ways they’re worse than fundies. At least with fundies they’re not in blatant contradiction to the writings of their book. With fundies you at least know where they’re coming from. The problem remains regardless, because you still have a book that is purportedly the word of god. And it commands obedience. And it commands the deaths of blasphemers and many others. Thus any belief in this nonsense will result in beliefs in the extremes. Religion is why people voted for Trump.

 

[Politesse]

I’m enjoying the debate this thread has generated.

But with respect to so called “Liberal” Christians, in many ways they’re worse than fundies. At least with fundies they’re not in blatant contradiction to the writings of their book. With fundies you at least know where they’re coming from. The problem remains regardless, because you still have a book that is purportedly the word of god. And it commands obedience. And it commands the deaths of blasphemers and many others. Thus any belief in this nonsense will result in beliefs in the extremes. Religion is why people voted for Trump.

Are you fucking kidding me? No one hates the Bible's actual teachings as much as religious fundamentalists. I know they say otherwise, but they are liars like their father the Devil. Have you ever met a religious fundamentalist who has sold all of their possessions and given them to the poor? Even one? Or who genuinely lives by the principle of turning the other cheek when assaulted or insulted? Even "nice" fundamentalists treat other human beings not in their group like monsters. It's core to what they believe: that the Bible says whatever they want it to. Or what about Muslim fundamentalists: have you ever met one who truly believes and acts as though "there must be no compulsion in religion"? Your own paragraph makes a laughable point, as Trump is the exact opposite of what the Bible says a good national leader should be. Vain, arrogant, heartless, adulterous. These are not the qualities of a Shepherd King as the Bible describes him. And since we're at it, the Bible promotes monarchy anyway, so what are they doing voting at all? It is optional in our country, so why don't they refuse if they truly believe in what the Bible teaches?

That makes them hypocrites. Liberals aren't hypocrites, as we never promised or claimed to worship a book in the first place. Disagreeing with the idea that textual innerancy is the heart of faith isn't inconsistent, it's just a disagreement, and a prudent one.

I hate how many atheists side with the loonies. You do realise they'd happily see us all dead, right? They do not deserve your support or your compliments, and they will absolutely never return the favor.

 

[Jarhyn]

I’m enjoying the debate this thread has generated.

But with respect to so called “Liberal” Christians, in many ways they’re worse than fundies. At least with fundies they’re not in blatant contradiction to the writings of their book. With fundies you at least know where they’re coming from. The problem remains regardless, because you still have a book that is purportedly the word of god. And it commands obedience. And it commands the deaths of blasphemers and many others. Thus any belief in this nonsense will result in beliefs in the extremes. Religion is why people voted for Trump.

Are you fucking kidding me? No one hates the Bible's actual teachings as much as religious fundamentalists. I know they say otherwise, but they are liars like their father the Devil. Have you ever met a religious fundamentalist who has sold all of their possessions and given them to the poor? Even one? Or who genuinely lives by the principle of turning the other cheek when assaulted or insulted? Even "nice" fundamentalists treat other human beings not in their group like monsters. It's core to what they believe: that the Bible says whatever they want it to. Or what about Muslim fundamentalists: have you ever met one who truly believes and acts as though "there must be no compulsion in religion"? Your own paragraph makes a laughable point, as Trump is the exact opposite of what the Bible says a good national leader should be. Vain, arrogant, heartless, adulterous. These are not the qualities of a Shepherd King as the Bible describes him. And since we're at it, the Bible promotes monarchy anyway, so what are they doing voting at all? It is optional in our country, so why don't they refuse if they truly believe in what the Bible teaches?

That makes them hypocrites. Liberals aren't hypocrites, as we never promised or claimed to worship a book in the first place. Disagreeing with the idea that textual innerancy is the heart of faith isn't inconsistent, it's just a disagreement, and a prudent one.

I hate how many atheists side with the loonies. You do realise they'd happily see us all dead, right? They do not deserve your support or your compliments, and they will absolutely never return the favor.

I will caution your direct conflation of liberals and atheists. Some liberals do worship the book, though generally quite a bit differently than conservatives.

Most of my ethics originated from the philosophical starting point that was The Bible. Then, I actually read it and attempted to understand everything in it rather than accepting what others told me it should be thought of as meaning. The result was seeing the disconnect between Johnnine and Pauline messaging and rejecting the latter as manipulative self interest that is generally common in "secondary prophet" or "poped" religions like catholicism, mormonism, scientology, and islam. In such religions, someone comes along with a good message containing valuable truth (or at least little of negative merit), and then along comes some other guy later who sits down in the chair of The Prophet and gets comfortable while they take liberty.

This is a direct result of the prophet not actually showing their work...

On the other hand, I hink part of the problem comes from the fact that humans are just not capable of operating in the world during their younger years, without some manner of belief/rules/authority phase of understanding. Everyone is religious, or believes secular things for religious reasons, before they can ever be anything else.

 

[Angry Floof]

I’m enjoying the debate this thread has generated.

But with respect to so called “Liberal” Christians, in many ways they’re worse than fundies. At least with fundies they’re not in blatant contradiction to the writings of their book. With fundies you at least know where they’re coming from. The problem remains regardless, because you still have a book that is purportedly the word of god. And it commands obedience. And it commands the deaths of blasphemers and many others. Thus any belief in this nonsense will result in beliefs in the extremes. Religion is why people voted for Trump.

Are you fucking kidding me? No one hates the Bible's actual teachings as much as religious fundamentalists. I know they say otherwise, but they are liars like their father the Devil. Have you ever met a religious fundamentalist who has sold all of their possessions and given them to the poor? Even one? Or who genuinely lives by the principle of turning the other cheek when assaulted or insulted? Even "nice" fundamentalists treat other human beings not in their group like monsters. It's core to what they believe: that the Bible says whatever they want it to. Or what about Muslim fundamentalists: have you ever met one who truly believes and acts as though "there must be no compulsion in religion"? Your own paragraph makes a laughable point, as Trump is the exact opposite of what the Bible says a good national leader should be. Vain, arrogant, heartless, adulterous. These are not the qualities of a Shepherd King as the Bible describes him. And since we're at it, the Bible promotes monarchy anyway, so what are they doing voting at all? It is optional in our country, so why don't they refuse if they truly believe in what the Bible teaches?

That makes them hypocrites. Liberals aren't hypocrites, as we never promised or claimed to worship a book in the first place. Disagreeing with the idea that textual innerancy is the heart of faith isn't inconsistent, it's just a disagreement, and a prudent one.

I hate how many atheists side with the loonies. You do realise they'd happily see us all dead, right? They do not deserve your support or your compliments, and they will absolutely never return the favor.

Which parts of the Bible? That guy who forced his daughter to marry her rapist is less hypocritical than "liberal" Christians. People who want to return to enslaving black people are good Christians according to the Bible.

Seriously, read the thing before saying this shit. Also, "their father the Devil"???

 

[Politesse]

Which parts of the Bible? That guy who forced his daughter to marry her rapist is less hypocritical than "liberal" Christians. People who want to return to enslaving black people are good Christians according to the Bible.

Which is why fundamentalism is a bad idea. It's always a game of "which parts". They just pretend not to play that game, while doing so to disastrous effect, ferreting out the worst possible portions to take lessons from.

Also, "their father the Devil"???

It is, of course, a Biblical quotation. I do read the book, I just don't fetishize it, nor see such blind idolatry as any sort of compliment when people engage in it. God, if there is a God, has no need of sycophants, and long-dead writers most certainly do not.

 

[Politesse]

I’m enjoying the debate this thread has generated.

But with respect to so called “Liberal” Christians, in many ways they’re worse than fundies. At least with fundies they’re not in blatant contradiction to the writings of their book. With fundies you at least know where they’re coming from. The problem remains regardless, because you still have a book that is purportedly the word of god. And it commands obedience. And it commands the deaths of blasphemers and many others. Thus any belief in this nonsense will result in beliefs in the extremes. Religion is why people voted for Trump.

Are you fucking kidding me? No one hates the Bible's actual teachings as much as religious fundamentalists. I know they say otherwise, but they are liars like their father the Devil. Have you ever met a religious fundamentalist who has sold all of their possessions and given them to the poor? Even one? Or who genuinely lives by the principle of turning the other cheek when assaulted or insulted? Even "nice" fundamentalists treat other human beings not in their group like monsters. It's core to what they believe: that the Bible says whatever they want it to. Or what about Muslim fundamentalists: have you ever met one who truly believes and acts as though "there must be no compulsion in religion"? Your own paragraph makes a laughable point, as Trump is the exact opposite of what the Bible says a good national leader should be. Vain, arrogant, heartless, adulterous. These are not the qualities of a Shepherd King as the Bible describes him. And since we're at it, the Bible promotes monarchy anyway, so what are they doing voting at all? It is optional in our country, so why don't they refuse if they truly believe in what the Bible teaches?

That makes them hypocrites. Liberals aren't hypocrites, as we never promised or claimed to worship a book in the first place. Disagreeing with the idea that textual innerancy is the heart of faith isn't inconsistent, it's just a disagreement, and a prudent one.

I hate how many atheists side with the loonies. You do realise they'd happily see us all dead, right? They do not deserve your support or your compliments, and they will absolutely never return the favor.

I will caution your direct conflation of liberals and atheists. Some liberals do worship the book, though generally quite a bit differently than conservatives.

Most of my ethics originated from the philosophical starting point that was The Bible. Then, I actually read it and attempted to understand everything in it rather than accepting what others told me it should be thought of as meaning. The result was seeing the disconnect between Johnnine and Pauline messaging and rejecting the latter as manipulative self interest that is generally common in "secondary prophet" or "poped" religions like catholicism, mormonism, scientology, and islam. In such religions, someone comes along with a good message containing valuable truth (or at least little of negative merit), and then along comes some other guy later who sits down in the chair of The Prophet and gets comfortable while they take liberty.

This is a direct result of the prophet not actually showing their work...

On the other hand, I hink part of the problem comes from the fact that humans are just not capable of operating in the world during their younger years, without some manner of belief/rules/authority phase of understanding. Everyone is religious, or believes secular things for religious reasons, before they can ever be anything else.

I meant liberal Christians, in fact (they whom SLD was attempting to drag for "hypocrisy").

 

[ideologyhunter]

All the doubters (especially the priests) have an unsavory fate in store, according to Almighty God, speaking in Malachi 2:1-3 :

And now to my priests, this is for you. If you still won't listen, if you do not honor my name, then a curse I send on you and all your goods. Fact is, I already cursed them, because you didn't listen. I'm going after your kids, too, and I will personally rub shit -- yea, verily, shit! -- on your faces.
(Hearty American Vernacular Edition, 2020)