Religious Joy: A Question for Atheists

[rousseau]

I have decided that It's not religion or non religion that brings most of us joy, it's the "value and enrichment of interpersonal relationships." I stole that quote from the book I'm reading that compares the Nones and the Somes. Somes is the word used by the author to describe those who believe in one particular religion. It's lead me to believe that basically we all receive joy from the same kinds of things, and what we believe has nothing to do with that joy, unless perhaps what we believes keeps us from having the type of relationships that bring most of us joy. For example extremism of any kind probably prohibits joy.

Some of the things in the book reminded me of the wonderful buzz that I usually received after attending either the Atlanta Freethought Society monthly meetings, local atheist meetups etc. When you bring people together in friendship, who share similar values, there is usually a feeling of joy that occurs from being together and sharing ideas. I assume that's the type of joy that religious folks claim they feel from their churches. The same joy can be found in other ways, from pets, from a walk in the woods, from doing something charitable for others, from art, especially music, imo. etc. So, afaik, most healthy people who don't suffer from social isolation, mental illness, or perhaps deprivation of their basic needs like food and shelter are able to experience joy, no different from what believers experience from their religions. I personally doubt it's the religion that brings the joy. It's the relationships and the emotional buzz that comes from gathering together and sharing music and rituals.

I never experienced joy or at least not much joy from my childhood religious beliefs, that were basically forced on me. I did sometimes find a little joy by singing in the youth choir or with the congregation and I do love music of many genres so that makes sense to me now. But, during my early adulthood, after several years of searching for the one true religion, I suddenly realized that no gods exist, I felt a tremendous amount of joy at that realization. Perhaps that is similar to how religious people feel when they believe they have found god or gods. I used to hang out with Bahai's when I was young and married to a follower of that religion. Most of the people were very friendly and thoughtful and from what I recall, I received that same joyous buzz being with them, other than my ex. It had nothing to do with the religion per se. It was all about the "values and enrichment of interpersonal relationships". No gods required.

I enjoy having friends over for dinner, for doing things for others, especially when they appreciate it. I mentioned in the other thread about the woman who researched how Nones and Somes were asked what brought them joy or bliss or spiritual happiness, the top four answers were always, family, friends, food sharing and fido ( pets ). Some more explicit religious things were further down on the list. So, imo, religious people can experience joy, seemingly from their religion, just like the rest of us can. But, as I said before, it's probably not the religion per se that brings them joy, but the relationships and rituals etc. that make them feel joyous. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe a little bit of both? Community and the idea of someone watching out for us, injecting meaning and reason into everything we do.

I wonder if that's exactly what makes non-belief so scary to believers - if God isn't real, then our lives are random, chaotic, and without objective meaning (at least in the eyes of a believer). That's not a trivial concern.

You could be right. I've just been influenced by that book I'm currently reading about the Nones. I was surprised that so many people who believe in organized religion gave the same answers as the Nones when asked what brings them joy or meaning in their lives.

My wife often says the same thing. She grew up in the Catholic Church, but her and her siblings stopped attending as teenagers. But she still misses the community.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps because religion is accorded "sacred" status and therefore not as transparent as secular organizations we have a working explanation for how despicable behavior is enabled within institutions that allegedly epitomize goodness and wholesomeness and the supposed ultimate aspirations of humans. Maybe the best answer is that in short authority just doesn't get openly questioned or challenged. Everyone has his or her acceptable and comfortable place within that ordained vertical hierarchy. The great woo is in charge and the great woo is mysterious and the great woo is loving and the great woo is powerful and the great woo is all seeing and loyalty to the great woo is handsomely rewarded and the great woo should not be questioned and the great woo protects us from enemies and on and on and on. This mindset is very comforting for many people and thus despicable behavior is easily enabled whether directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly.

The better question is what is happening neurologically to create such a condition within a given human. How is it that one person recognizes the danger and potential danger inherent in such an arrangement while another person enables the danger? I think that is ultimately the million dollar question. How is it that one person is not moved by evidence or lack of evidence and relies instead on emotions to make decisions?

We know that the prefontal cortex is a very delicate organ. We also know that the prefontal cortex is one third of our brain and that it is the last part of the human brain to evolve. We know that it is the most highly evolved brain structure. We know that it does not fully mature until well after the teen years of life. We also know that it regulates behavior by suppressing impulsive behavior and more or less orders daily activity. But we also know that it is extremely vulnerable to stress, particularly acute stress. We know that stress disables the brains ability to remain calm and rational by affecting the operation of the prefontal cortex. We surmise that evolution has chosen survival over examination and that the reason primitive brain structures can so easily assert dominance over rational faculties is because survival must come first. And of course that makes sense considering all the threats that most humans have faced over the course of evolution up to very recently.

We know that repeated stress can not only intermittently but permanently disable higher brain function, literally disable the prefontal cortex from performing its evolved function for the life of the person. Again, evolution seems to have chosen survival over all else. It has literally chosen to shut down the prefontal cortex permanently and deferred to other evolved more primitive survival strategies such as our basal ganglia, amygdala and hypothalamus so that the organism can survive. This is quite understandable, even rational considering that survival is in the balance.

Some of us are naturally more vulnerable to these neural changes than others but it is safe so say that we are all similarly affected to varying degrees. That frenzy of neurotransmitters released during stress are quickly enzymatically broken down when the danger and uncertainty is passed, at least when the prefontal cortex and the brain is working normally. The shakes and jitters are gone. Higher cognition returns and we return to a more or less baseline behavior wrt a balance between stress takeover by primitive brain areas and orderliness and examination of daily life as enabled by a highly developed prefontal cortex.

We also know that chronic stress literally shrinks the prefontal cortex and increases the size of primitive brain areas. Chronic stress is literally the death of higher brain functioning. The lower brain saves the day if we encounter danger and require an immediate instinctive response. But if that fear response is persistent, if the stress is chronic, the prefontal cortex shuts down and with it such things as philosophical examination, scientific curiosity, awareness and other higher more complex thought processes. We lose the ability to be reflective and instead become more reflexive organisms, it becomes comforting to live in fear.

It is safe to say that we would all benefit from the knowledge and understanding of how the brain manages stress. I would go so far as to say that because so many of those primitive threats have been removed from our daily experiences, and given present conditions for the vast majority of us, the brain is mismanaging stress, making us less likely to survive, not more likely. Simply put the environment has changed and legacy behavior within the brain has not yet caught up.

Having closely observed individuals with an obviously well functioning prefontal cortex become religious and start thinking that they are in contact with gods, all the foregoing discussion about how the brain manages stress makes sense. The stress of daily life literally changes brain architecture. Life needed to become easier to survive and the brain stepped in and accomplished exactly that albeit with a pretty hefty tradeoff. The primitive brain performed a lobotomy minus the scalpel. Relax, it's all god's handiwork to deal with enemies.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was surprised that so many people who believe in organized religion gave the same answers as the Nones when asked what brings them joy or meaning in their lives.

I cannot imagine how it could ever be otherwise.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I have plenty of relations that hold absolutely abhorrent views, some of them even religious, but I'm under no illusion that the situation is going to get better by othering and attacking them.

Attacking is the wrong word.

Moral correction would be more fitting.

Try loving correction, --- you seem good at it BTW, --- to those who preach homophobia and misogyny, --- while the governments of most civilized states, --- preach for equality of all souls.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Get on my side and we can change the world to a more just form.

Keep the good of religions, but rid the world of it's worse traits.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I have decided that It's not religion or non religion that brings most of us joy, it's the "value and enrichment of interpersonal relationships." I stole that quote from the book I'm reading that compares the Nones and the Somes. Somes is the word used by the author to describe those who believe in one particular religion. It's lead me to believe that basically we all receive joy from the same kinds of things, and what we believe has nothing to do with that joy, unless perhaps what we believes keeps us from having the type of relationships that bring most of us joy. For example extremism of any kind probably prohibits joy.

Some of the things in the book reminded me of the wonderful buzz that I usually received after attending either the Atlanta Freethought Society monthly meetings, local atheist meetups etc. When you bring people together in friendship, who share similar values, there is usually a feeling of joy that occurs from being together and sharing ideas. I assume that's the type of joy that religious folks claim they feel from their churches. The same joy can be found in other ways, from pets, from a walk in the woods, from doing something charitable for others, from art, especially music, imo. etc. So, afaik, most healthy people who don't suffer from social isolation, mental illness, or perhaps deprivation of their basic needs like food and shelter are able to experience joy, no different from what believers experience from their religions. I personally doubt it's the religion that brings the joy. It's the relationships and the emotional buzz that comes from gathering together and sharing music and rituals.

I never experienced joy or at least not much joy from my childhood religious beliefs, that were basically forced on me. I did sometimes find a little joy by singing in the youth choir or with the congregation and I do love music of many genres so that makes sense to me now. But, during my early adulthood, after several years of searching for the one true religion, I suddenly realized that no gods exist, I felt a tremendous amount of joy at that realization. Perhaps that is similar to how religious people feel when they believe they have found god or gods. I used to hang out with Bahai's when I was young and married to a follower of that religion. Most of the people were very friendly and thoughtful and from what I recall, I received that same joyous buzz being with them, other than my ex. It had nothing to do with the religion per se. It was all about the "values and enrichment of interpersonal relationships". No gods required.

I enjoy having friends over for dinner, for doing things for others, especially when they appreciate it. I mentioned in the other thread about the woman who researched how Nones and Somes were asked what brought them joy or bliss or spiritual happiness, the top four answers were always, family, friends, food sharing and fido ( pets ). Some more explicit religious things were further down on the list. So, imo, religious people can experience joy, seemingly from their religion, just like the rest of us can. But, as I said before, it's probably not the religion per se that brings them joy, but the relationships and rituals etc. that make them feel joyous. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe a little bit of both? Community and the idea of someone watching out for us, injecting meaning and reason into everything we do.

I wonder if that's exactly what makes non-belief so scary to believers - if God isn't real, then our lives are random, chaotic, and without objective meaning (at least in the eyes of a believer). That's not a trivial concern.

You could be right. I've just been influenced by that book I'm currently reading about the Nones. I was surprised that so many people who believe in organized religion gave the same answers as the Nones when asked what brings them joy or meaning in their lives.

My wife often says the same thing. She grew up in the Catholic Church, but her and her siblings stopped attending as teenagers. But she still misses the community.

I owe Christianity more than most.

It's greatest gift was in helping me to my apotheosis.

I pay back by being a Gnostic Christian and trying to return Christianity to the purity that made it take off before stupid supernatural thinking poisoned it.

It when from the beauty of a naturalistic creed to the ugliness of adoring a genocidal god who would hate his own gay child.

Yahweh, by any other name is a really evil God.

Atheists who do not push that theme may not be as morally fit as the atheist intelligentsia.

The more morally slow to go atheists should speed up.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Perhaps because religion is accorded "sacred" status and therefore not as transparent as secular organizations we have a working explanation for how despicable behavior is enabled within institutions that allegedly epitomize goodness and wholesomeness and the supposed ultimate aspirations of humans.

I liked the rest of your thinking. My kingdom for some of the eloquence.

This quoted bit bothered me.

I see the present secular system as helping the evils in religions.

Where is it denouncing the churches and mosques for preaching against the equality laws of the land?

I also have a pet peeve about how our immoral courts allow the church to turn a pedophiles crime into a pay for play by the church with the victims parents and turning the victim into a pay prostitute.

IOW's. They create many more victims by not punishing the pedophile.

Our legal system is a make work for pedophiles system.

Most people do not care.

Regards
DL

 

[Angry Floof]

I have no issue at all with commenting on religion if it comes from a place of commonality and respect.

??

You respect homophobes and misogynous people?

Why?

Love for all is likely endemic, but respect has to be earned.

If you respect evil morals and ethics, you are part of the evil.

Regards
DL

It's more about sympathy and empathy for the person, than respect for the behavior. A person can commit abhorrent behavior, but responding with vengefulness won't make anything better.

.. an eye for an eye? Violence just begets more violence.

Your sympathy, instead of duty against harm, creates more harm, by you not calling it 9out in advance.

You sympathise more with the sinner than his victim.

Nice garbage ideology.

Regards
DL

You can be sympathetic and still diligent against harm. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

You can also ignore the abusers while pretending to hold an attitude of some kind of equity.

Whatever goodness you see in religious groups - community, meaning, whatever - can be had without religion and without the abusive father figure paradigm that is so conducive to abuse.

There's also some specific harms and the manipulations that cause them that can be addressed while still holding an empathetic regard for the abusers (the religious beliefs are not people, but you're still free to regard them as entities that deserve respect, although that is part of what makes much of the abuse possible in the first place):
- Shaming is bad. Shaming should be reserved for the powerful, and NOT children, women in marriages that reduce her freedom, abused women, LGBTQ people, etc.
- Lying to sick or disabled people about healing
- Lying to poor people about getting rich if they send money
- Failing to hold religious authority figures accountable - pastors, priests, junior pastors, the god damn Pope, etc., and looking away when they demonize or in some way make the vulnerable people they have abused seem more powerful or consenting than is really true.

There's lots more, as you know, @rousseau , so please stop ignoring actual harm and corruption enabled and encouraged by religious beliefs. OR STOP PRETENDING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS. We see what you're doing, and it's despicable.

Honestly? This sounds like you're either misunderstanding, or reading too far into my comments. I'm not doing anything, I'm not sticking up for the church or whatever. I'm pointing out that a person can be badly behaved, and I don't have to hate them or spit vitriol at them.

Two things can be true at the same time: the church as an institution can (in some cases) be self-interested and predatory, and people can still benefit from their beliefs. I can also not condone anti-social behavior, but not respond with more anti-social behavior.

I have plenty of relations that hold absolutely abhorrent views, some of them even religious, but I'm under no illusion that the situation is going to get better by othering and attacking them.

Whenever harmful religious beliefs are criticized in any way you don't like, you start insinuating that doing so is dehumanizing religious people, which is dangerous bullshit and misplaced as well.

Nobody wants to harm religious people or regard them as some kind of vermin. That's not what's happening and no one is in danger of being harmed by angry atheists, not socially and certainly not physically or in any way that would violate their rights or interfere with their pursuit of happiness. One of the main reasons we're angry is because of the abuse of parishioners. They're not being "othered" by hearing negative opinions and challenges to religion. The majority of Christians in the US are white people, not vulnerable minorities, and that is true for the entire Western world. The vulnerable among them is who we want to protect from manipulation and abuse. We want them to protect their own instead of controlling and abusing them.

Religious belief by and large encourages believers to "other" anyone outside of whatever they perceive as their ideological group. whether it's a small sect or major denomination or Christianity of all denoms. But mostly they're encouraged to not pay us all (the world outside) conscious attention or allow themselves access to accurate information about people they Other, which is pretty much the whole world outside of their tribe. They're taught that the world outside will always lie to them and prey on them and it's full of people with no moral compass, etc., etc. They inadvertently contribute suffering to wider society while under the illusion that their religion is all goodness.

It's for damn sure that the situation is not going to get better by demanding respect for people supporting and giving power and life to a cult that dominates the Western world and thrives on those abhorrent views. People make fun of each other all the time, and those majority white Christians in our Western lands make fun of outgroups and have already dismissed our humanity. Put your condemnation where it really belongs.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have decided that It's not religion or non religion that brings most of us joy, it's the "value and enrichment of interpersonal relationships." I stole that quote from the book I'm reading that compares the Nones and the Somes. Somes is the word used by the author to describe those who believe in one particular religion. It's lead me to believe that basically we all receive joy from the same kinds of things, and what we believe has nothing to do with that joy, unless perhaps what we believes keeps us from having the type of relationships that bring most of us joy. For example extremism of any kind probably prohibits joy.

Some of the things in the book reminded me of the wonderful buzz that I usually received after attending either the Atlanta Freethought Society monthly meetings, local atheist meetups etc. When you bring people together in friendship, who share similar values, there is usually a feeling of joy that occurs from being together and sharing ideas. I assume that's the type of joy that religious folks claim they feel from their churches. The same joy can be found in other ways, from pets, from a walk in the woods, from doing something charitable for others, from art, especially music, imo. etc. So, afaik, most healthy people who don't suffer from social isolation, mental illness, or perhaps deprivation of their basic needs like food and shelter are able to experience joy, no different from what believers experience from their religions. I personally doubt it's the religion that brings the joy. It's the relationships and the emotional buzz that comes from gathering together and sharing music and rituals.

I never experienced joy or at least not much joy from my childhood religious beliefs, that were basically forced on me. I did sometimes find a little joy by singing in the youth choir or with the congregation and I do love music of many genres so that makes sense to me now. But, during my early adulthood, after several years of searching for the one true religion, I suddenly realized that no gods exist, I felt a tremendous amount of joy at that realization. Perhaps that is similar to how religious people feel when they believe they have found god or gods. I used to hang out with Bahai's when I was young and married to a follower of that religion. Most of the people were very friendly and thoughtful and from what I recall, I received that same joyous buzz being with them, other than my ex. It had nothing to do with the religion per se. It was all about the "values and enrichment of interpersonal relationships". No gods required.

I enjoy having friends over for dinner, for doing things for others, especially when they appreciate it. I mentioned in the other thread about the woman who researched how Nones and Somes were asked what brought them joy or bliss or spiritual happiness, the top four answers were always, family, friends, food sharing and fido ( pets ). Some more explicit religious things were further down on the list. So, imo, religious people can experience joy, seemingly from their religion, just like the rest of us can. But, as I said before, it's probably not the religion per se that brings them joy, but the relationships and rituals etc. that make them feel joyous. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe a little bit of both? Community and the idea of someone watching out for us, injecting meaning and reason into everything we do.

I wonder if that's exactly what makes non-belief so scary to believers - if God isn't real, then our lives are random, chaotic, and without objective meaning (at least in the eyes of a believer). That's not a trivial concern.

You could be right. I've just been influenced by that book I'm currently reading about the Nones. I was surprised that so many people who believe in organized religion gave the same answers as the Nones when asked what brings them joy or meaning in their lives.

My wife often says the same thing. She grew up in the Catholic Church, but her and her siblings stopped attending as teenagers. But she still misses the community.

I owe Christianity more than most.

It's greatest gift was in helping me to my apotheosis.

I pay back by being a Gnostic Christian and trying to return Christianity to the purity that made it take off before stupid supernatural thinking poisoned it.

It when from the beauty of a naturalistic creed to the ugliness of adoring a genocidal god who would hate his own gay child.

Yahweh, by any other name is a really evil God.

Atheists who do not push that theme may not be as morally fit as the atheist intelligentsia.

The more morally slow to go atheists should speed up.

Regards
DL

I was surprised that so many people who believe in organized religion gave the same answers as the Nones when asked what brings them joy or meaning in their lives.

I cannot imagine how it could ever be otherwise.

I was just surprised that the Christians who still attended church, didn't give answers like prayer, Jesus, etc. instead of friendship, family, food sharing and pets. Prayer was number 5 on the list, so not everyone was in agreement.

 

[Angry Floof]

I have decided that It's not religion or non religion that brings most of us joy, it's the "value and enrichment of interpersonal relationships." I stole that quote from the book I'm reading that compares the Nones and the Somes. Somes is the word used by the author to describe those who believe in one particular religion. It's lead me to believe that basically we all receive joy from the same kinds of things, and what we believe has nothing to do with that joy, unless perhaps what we believes keeps us from having the type of relationships that bring most of us joy. For example extremism of any kind probably prohibits joy.

Some of the things in the book reminded me of the wonderful buzz that I usually received after attending either the Atlanta Freethought Society monthly meetings, local atheist meetups etc. When you bring people together in friendship, who share similar values, there is usually a feeling of joy that occurs from being together and sharing ideas. I assume that's the type of joy that religious folks claim they feel from their churches. The same joy can be found in other ways, from pets, from a walk in the woods, from doing something charitable for others, from art, especially music, imo. etc. So, afaik, most healthy people who don't suffer from social isolation, mental illness, or perhaps deprivation of their basic needs like food and shelter are able to experience joy, no different from what believers experience from their religions. I personally doubt it's the religion that brings the joy. It's the relationships and the emotional buzz that comes from gathering together and sharing music and rituals.

I never experienced joy or at least not much joy from my childhood religious beliefs, that were basically forced on me. I did sometimes find a little joy by singing in the youth choir or with the congregation and I do love music of many genres so that makes sense to me now. But, during my early adulthood, after several years of searching for the one true religion, I suddenly realized that no gods exist, I felt a tremendous amount of joy at that realization. Perhaps that is similar to how religious people feel when they believe they have found god or gods. I used to hang out with Bahai's when I was young and married to a follower of that religion. Most of the people were very friendly and thoughtful and from what I recall, I received that same joyous buzz being with them, other than my ex. It had nothing to do with the religion per se. It was all about the "values and enrichment of interpersonal relationships". No gods required.

I enjoy having friends over for dinner, for doing things for others, especially when they appreciate it. I mentioned in the other thread about the woman who researched how Nones and Somes were asked what brought them joy or bliss or spiritual happiness, the top four answers were always, family, friends, food sharing and fido ( pets ). Some more explicit religious things were further down on the list. So, imo, religious people can experience joy, seemingly from their religion, just like the rest of us can. But, as I said before, it's probably not the religion per se that brings them joy, but the relationships and rituals etc. that make them feel joyous. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe a little bit of both? Community and the idea of someone watching out for us, injecting meaning and reason into everything we do.

I wonder if that's exactly what makes non-belief so scary to believers - if God isn't real, then our lives are random, chaotic, and without objective meaning (at least in the eyes of a believer). That's not a trivial concern.

You could be right. I've just been influenced by that book I'm currently reading about the Nones. I was surprised that so many people who believe in organized religion gave the same answers as the Nones when asked what brings them joy or meaning in their lives.

My wife often says the same thing. She grew up in the Catholic Church, but her and her siblings stopped attending as teenagers. But she still misses the community.

What's stopping her from finding community? Just because a community was handed to her in the past doesn't mean she can't find community. She lives near major cities in a civilized, developed country. There's no reason she can't find community.

When we're children, we can't choose our community. It's given to us. So having the freedom to find your own community and not living in a remote cabin in the Tundra with no phone or internet access, to me, is not just a joy but a better joy than the packaged religious kind by far.

The belief that religion is good and offers us everything we need and without it we don't have those needs met is unfortunately a belief that runs deep in the substrate of Western society. Shed that bullshit and go find your authentic community among those available in your sphere. If there's nothing packaged and easy, then make your community. That's where community comes from - human beings.

 

[rousseau]

I have no issue at all with commenting on religion if it comes from a place of commonality and respect.

??

You respect homophobes and misogynous people?

Why?

Love for all is likely endemic, but respect has to be earned.

If you respect evil morals and ethics, you are part of the evil.

Regards
DL

It's more about sympathy and empathy for the person, than respect for the behavior. A person can commit abhorrent behavior, but responding with vengefulness won't make anything better.

.. an eye for an eye? Violence just begets more violence.

Your sympathy, instead of duty against harm, creates more harm, by you not calling it 9out in advance.

You sympathise more with the sinner than his victim.

Nice garbage ideology.

Regards
DL

You can be sympathetic and still diligent against harm. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

You can also ignore the abusers while pretending to hold an attitude of some kind of equity.

Whatever goodness you see in religious groups - community, meaning, whatever - can be had without religion and without the abusive father figure paradigm that is so conducive to abuse.

There's also some specific harms and the manipulations that cause them that can be addressed while still holding an empathetic regard for the abusers (the religious beliefs are not people, but you're still free to regard them as entities that deserve respect, although that is part of what makes much of the abuse possible in the first place):
- Shaming is bad. Shaming should be reserved for the powerful, and NOT children, women in marriages that reduce her freedom, abused women, LGBTQ people, etc.
- Lying to sick or disabled people about healing
- Lying to poor people about getting rich if they send money
- Failing to hold religious authority figures accountable - pastors, priests, junior pastors, the god damn Pope, etc., and looking away when they demonize or in some way make the vulnerable people they have abused seem more powerful or consenting than is really true.

There's lots more, as you know, @rousseau , so please stop ignoring actual harm and corruption enabled and encouraged by religious beliefs. OR STOP PRETENDING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS. We see what you're doing, and it's despicable.

Honestly? This sounds like you're either misunderstanding, or reading too far into my comments. I'm not doing anything, I'm not sticking up for the church or whatever. I'm pointing out that a person can be badly behaved, and I don't have to hate them or spit vitriol at them.

Two things can be true at the same time: the church as an institution can (in some cases) be self-interested and predatory, and people can still benefit from their beliefs. I can also not condone anti-social behavior, but not respond with more anti-social behavior.

I have plenty of relations that hold absolutely abhorrent views, some of them even religious, but I'm under no illusion that the situation is going to get better by othering and attacking them.

Whenever harmful religious beliefs are criticized in any way you don't like, you start insinuating that doing so is dehumanizing religious people, which is dangerous bullshit and misplaced as well.

Nobody wants to harm religious people or regard them as some kind of vermin. That's not what's happening and no one is in danger of being harmed by angry atheists, not socially and certainly not physically or in any way that would violate their rights or interfere with their pursuit of happiness. One of the main reasons we're angry is because of the abuse of parishioners. They're not being "othered" by hearing negative opinions and challenges to religion. The majority of Christians in the US are white people, not vulnerable minorities, and that is true for the entire Western world. The vulnerable among them is who we want to protect from manipulation and abuse. We want them to protect their own instead of controlling and abusing them.

Religious belief by and large encourages believers to "other" anyone outside of whatever they perceive as their ideological group. whether it's a small sect or major denomination or Christianity of all denoms. But mostly they're encouraged to not pay us all (the world outside) conscious attention or allow themselves access to accurate information about people they Other, which is pretty much the whole world outside of their tribe. They're taught that the world outside will always lie to them and prey on them and it's full of people with no moral compass, etc., etc. They inadvertently contribute suffering to wider society while under the illusion that their religion is all goodness.

It's for damn sure that the situation is not going to get better by demanding respect for people supporting and giving power and life to a cult that dominates the Western world and thrives on those abhorrent views. People make fun of each other all the time, and those majority white Christians in our Western lands make fun of outgroups and have already dismissed our humanity. Put your condemnation where it really belongs.

Ok, I can accept all that, but understand that this thread isn't about the Catholic Church, or the US, it's about religion more broadly as practiced by the religious, which is an extremely diverse phenomenon globally. I didn't start this conversation with any intent to comment on criticism of religion (and have even openly advocated for criticizing religion), I started it to highlight the experience of those who follow religion.

And I think my words are still being misinterpreted. When I speak of having sympathy it doesn't mean I don't need to criticize, or condone, or even be particularly nice, it just means I don't have to hate, or respond with hatred. That has nothing to do with the literal criticism I express, it's about an internal feeling and understanding. Hatred is just something that eats at you, and isn't necessary, in my opinion. By all means, criticize the religious in any way you want to, I really don't care, but in my view it's not particularly helpful or healthy to hold hatred inside of us. I know your history with religion, so I know where your feelings come from, so by all means if this is what's valid for you, more power to you.

I also get that when you're living in the continental U.S. and surrounded by a certain type of person this might make someone a little more active than in other regions. In Canada it's a very different culture, and I likely hold a very different perspective than many Americans. I've also been studying religion for about seven years now and am interested in the way spirituality expresses itself. Outside of the politics of American religion, there is an entirely different, philosophical conversation to be had.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Your standard religion like catholicism relies on divisiveness and hatred, actually teaches people to be supremacists. Those protestants and jews and atheists and christ deniers are all going to hell. Too bad for them. I'm so lucky I'm not going to hell too, so glad I'm doing it all right and going to heaven.

I'd say the prefontal cortex on such an individual has been disconnected.

If we're defining religion as an extremely diverse global phenomenon that's a pretty strange description. So are trees and a million other things. Religion is a human phenomenon with causes. Let's start with that definition. The claim seems to be that it is spiritualism and therefore sacred and that it is not open to honest examination and opinion. Really?

 

[rousseau]

If we're defining religion as an extremely diverse global phenomenon that's a pretty strange description. So are trees and a million other things. Religion is a human phenomenon with causes. Let's start with that definition. The claim seems to be that it is spiritualism and therefore sacred and that it is not open to honest examination and opinion. Really?

The point was that you can't generalize religion across the entire globe, based on religion as practiced in the continental U.S. Probably you can't even generalize religion as practiced within the continental U.S.

And no, I've mentioned a number of times that it is quite open to honest examination and opinion. But when I've held up the lived experience of the religious for a few posts, they got called lunatics, and we're back to politics again.

 

[abaddon]

If we're defining religion as an extremely diverse global phenomenon that's a pretty strange description. So are trees and a million other things. Religion is a human phenomenon with causes. Let's start with that definition. The claim seems to be that it is spiritualism and therefore sacred and that it is not open to honest examination and opinion. Really?

Spiritualism is when mediums conjure dead souls to talk with them. So, that's a pretty fucked start at defining religion. If you're really interested in an intellectually honest description of religion, then keep in mind that jeering and description are miles apart. Where one is, the other isn't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The point was that you can't generalize religion across the entire globe, based on religion as practiced in the continental U.S. Probably you can't even generalize religion as practiced within the continental U.S.

And no, I've mentioned a number of times that it is quite open to honest examination and opinion. But when I've held up the lived experience of the religious for a few posts, they got called lunatics, and we're back to politics again.

We can generalize and we can also be specific. We can call people who are overtly religious lunatics if we want. I agree we shouldn't do it hatefully.

 

[southernhybrid]

Even in the US, religion is practiced in many different ways. That includes the many versions of Christianity. For example, the Methodist Church on the corner of my street is what I would probably call a moderate version of Christianity. While they believe most of the traditional Christian myths, they aren't preachy and they do far more for my community, in the way of charity work, than other organizations do. I've only met one member of that church and when I told her I was an atheist, her reply was, "That's cool. My son is not a believer either." These Christians are extremely different from the church members in the church that I attended as a child. I was taught that unbelievers were going to hell, that dancing and drinking were sins against god, etc. etc. I think it's wrong of us to criticize those who enjoy or feel the need for beliefs in the supernatural. We can criticize the beliefs as being false, but it's obvious to me that they often fulfill a need, that isn't met by government or non religious organizations.

Rousseau can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that may be what he's trying to convey.

PS. I still think those damn crosses are creepy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Spiritualism is when mediums conjure dead souls to talk with them. So, that's a pretty fucked start at defining religion. If you're really interested in an intellectually honest description of religion, then keep in mind that jeering and description are miles apart. Where one is, the other isn't.

One is always advised to take one's own advice. To me spiritualism is whatever a person thinks it is. We can define it for refined discussion. Go ahead. That way we can identify spiritual individuals and spiritual institutions. I don't think such a distinction will amount to a spit in the ocean but go ahead.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

PS. I still think those damn crosses are creepy.

I've met such creeps. Don't take their fantasy seriously and it becomes pretty obvious that their prefontal cortices haven't been firing in a long time, but they don't know it.

 

[southernhybrid]

Spiritualism is when mediums conjure dead souls to talk with them. So, that's a pretty fucked start at defining religion. If you're really interested in an intellectually honest description of religion, then keep in mind that jeering and description are miles apart. Where one is, the other isn't.

One is always advised to take one's own advice. To me spiritualism is whatever a person thinks it is. We can define it for refined discussion. Go ahead. That way we can identify spiritual individuals and spiritual institutions. I don't think such a distinction will amount to a spit in the ocean but go ahead.

Most of our discussions don't amount to a spit in the ocean so why not, if some of us have nothing better to do, discuss the definition of spirit or spiritual or spiritualism. Or we could discuss which type of spirits some of us like to drink.

 

[steve_bank]

I grew up watching the 30s-40s movies on TV, they were riddled with spiritualism. To me spiritualism means palm reading, seances talking to the dead and so on. IIt is synonymouss with the occult. The movie 13 Ghosts. The book and movie Lost Horizons.

I think in general in the USA it traces back to a woman in the late 19th century. In the 19th cebtury there were 'seeres' and prophesizers unrelated to Chtianity.

Houdini went around debunking spiritualists. I think he was testing it to see if it was real. He supposidly left a secret message with his wife so if he died first and somebody claimed to talk to him she could ask a specific question. It was part of the culture.

We played with Ouija boards as kids.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you're old like me you remember Erich von Daniken and Chariots of the Gods. It was a bunch of crap but if you are young and conditioned to believe such garbage you will take it seriously like I did for a while. We all remember Leonard Nimoy talking about the Bermuda Triangle, the San Andres Fault, the Lost Dutchman Mine and a host of other subjects. Woo had big license in those days. Atheism was the great evil. My parents regularly prayed for the conversion of Russia and "The Jews." Today the History Channel has become the Woo Channel.