Religious Joy: A Question for Atheists

[Jarhyn]

Sometimes, oftentimes, perhaps always, that actualization involves taking in ideas and models and stories and tropes of culture and layering them with the glue of our interest to build something unique and extraordinary.

One can look at, even participate in old stories, and not be religious about them.

We can pretend and fantasize, go see movies, read novels, and it can be satisfying and fun. Being a materialist negates none of that enjoyment.

So, now we're getting into some much stickier territory, because not all imaginary things are "nonsense", either.

Just because I have a material implementation does not even mean that I do not also have a soul!

In fact there are two different things for which the word "soul" can be applied, and people have both, even to the extent that each is imaginary.

Consideration of such things, and the edification and improvement of them, is tantamount to me.

I am not a materialist. Not all things that float between absurdities are nonsense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This thread is about validating the experience of the religious, granting them personhood without expectation. Do you have thoughts on that?

I certainly grant them personhood.

I also equate them with bigfoot believers, conspiracy theorists, ufo believers, etc. because they're not scientifically rational. As such they're a little insane, a bit dangerous, poor observers and therefore poor problem solvers.

 

[rousseau]

This thread is about validating the experience of the religious, granting them personhood without expectation. Do you have thoughts on that?

I certainly grant them personhood.

I also equate them with bigfoot believers, conspiracy theorists, ufo believers, etc. because they're not scientifically rational. As such they're a little insane, a bit dangerous, poor observers and therefore poor problem solvers.

So how do you conclude that you grant them personhood while at the same time calling them insane? Those two thoughts seem to be at odds.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So how do you conclude that you grant them personhood while at the same time calling them insane? Those two thoughts seem to be at odds.

I said they're a little insane. Are you saying that persons who are insane are not persons?

Thinking they are ghosts and going to fly away to live in the sky with a superghost that is watching their sex organs isn't particularly rational to me. Singing songs to a superghost isn't particularly rational. It's insanity behavior that has become normalized because it is so common in the population.

 

[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.

 

[Angry Floof]

This thread is about validating the experience of the religious, granting them personhood without expectation. Do you have thoughts on that?

I certainly grant them personhood.

I also equate them with bigfoot believers, conspiracy theorists, ufo believers, etc. because they're not scientifically rational. As such they're a little insane, a bit dangerous, poor observers and therefore poor problem solvers.

So how do you conclude that you grant them personhood while at the same time calling them insane? Those two thoughts seem to be at odds.

That comment is at odds with reality. Are you saying that only non-persons can be insane? Pointing out someone's utter bullshit belief may be rude to some people, but in no way is it a denial of their personhood!

I think you want to equate criticism of religion with dehumanizing the religious, which is kind of ironic given that dehumanization is a common practice of the unexamined supernatural abusive father figure social dominance cults when faced with criticism. The authoritarian cult tendency to demonize outgroups is one of the biggest problems of "faith" religions and the cause of untold suffering around the world from excommunication to imprisonment to, you know, burning.

Critical thinking and education, which is what critics of religion generally promote, can help prevent that sort of ideology taking hold in a society.

I hope this is just a case of you not really thinking this accusation through before posting it.

 

[rousseau]

So how do you conclude that you grant them personhood while at the same time calling them insane? Those two thoughts seem to be at odds.

I said they're a little insane. Are you saying that persons who are insane are not persons?

Thinking they are ghosts and going to fly away to live in the sky with a superghost that is watching their sex organs isn't particularly rational to me. Singing songs to a superghost isn't particularly rational. It's insanity behavior that has become normalized because it is so common in the population.

It's a pejorative. You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons who are functional and every-day members of their communities, based on their belief system. That is the very definition of not granting them personhood.

Personhood being defined as them having rights due to the nature of being a person. In this case I think it would be the right to respect.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's a pejorative. You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons

Religious people are a social class? That's news to me. And I'm not insulting anyone.

I used to believe that santa and tooth fairies were real. Should I feel insulted?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

In a lot of ways the assertion that people need to see the light of atheism echoes the same perspective that Christians had toward ~ Pagans, Africans, NA Indigenous etc.

I am not an atheist. But ---

Given that atheism and atheists are showing themselves to have much better morals than the religious, check whatever stats you like, their ideology seems to work better than the homophobic and misogynous religionists that adore a genocidal prick of a god and are praying for Armageddon to genocide our ass again.

Take the foul immoral religions and put them back up god's ass from where they come.

Religions do not seem to care about morals, but atheists seem to, given their better ethics.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But the problem is not that people argue. Discussing ideas, and making a strong case that your ideas are better than other ideas, is very important.

True, but have you ever tried to engage a believer in a moral discussion of his so called moral tenets.

They run for the hills the moment they have to think, so they hide behind their double moral standard, where they forgive god for many things that they condemn in men.

Including genocide.

Hurray says St. Hitler, one of the best Christians, as he tried real hard to do as scriptures say and emulate god.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons who are functional and every-day members of their communities, based on their belief system.

Do the religious deserve it?

The religious right is preaching homophobia and misogyny and that a father must hate his gay children and reduce the worth of his wife.

All while governments are preaching for equality.

Who are the ass holes. The religious who discriminate without a just cause, or governments that preach equality of opportunity for all?

Regards
DL

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons who are functional and every-day members of their communities, based on their belief system.

Do the religious deserve it?

The religious right is preaching homophobia and misogyny and that a father must hate his gay children and reduce the worth of his wife.

All while governments are preaching for equality.

Who are the ass holes. The religious who discriminate without a just cause, or governments that preach equality of opportunity for all?

Regards
DL

I wasn't even looking at it from that angle but you are absolutely right. That behavior has been fairly typical and reflects standard western religious behavior wrt those subjects.

 

[rousseau]

In a lot of ways the assertion that people need to see the light of atheism echoes the same perspective that Christians had toward ~ Pagans, Africans, NA Indigenous etc.

But the problem is not that people argue. Discussing ideas, and making a strong case that your ideas are better than other ideas, is very important.

I'd say making a case for atheism is very natural, in the same way Christians made a case for Christianity to those of so-called 'primitive' religions. Maybe I'm a bit unrealistic and like promoting my own worldview - which is doing so while not othering people.

I have a Filipino sister-in-law who holds pretty strong Christian views. I really don't think I'd be able to contradict her beliefs in any meaningful way, and our relationship is much more enjoyable when I seek commonality with her and enjoy our shared existence, rather than looking down on her. She's really a very lovely person, and in many ways I get a kick out of how happy and spiritual she seems to be.

Over time we'll become closer, we'll learn more about each other, my interests might spark some curiosity in her, maybe not. If she ever lets go of Christianity that'll be a path she takes herself.

 

[rousseau]

You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons who are functional and every-day members of their communities, based on their belief system.

Do the religious deserve it?

The religious right is preaching homophobia and misogyny and that a father must hate his gay children and reduce the worth of his wife.

All while governments are preaching for equality.

Who are the ass holes. The religious who discriminate without a just cause, or governments that preach equality of opportunity for all?

Regards
DL

In a lot of ways the assertion that people need to see the light of atheism echoes the same perspective that Christians had toward ~ Pagans, Africans, NA Indigenous etc.

Many atheists grossly over-generalize. They leap from "there are mistaken beliefs in religions" to "all religion is eeeeevilllll!!!" It's too bad they won't discuss the differing perspectives rather than pretend they're the ones who have the truly objective, definitive kind of knowledge that obviates all ways of life other than a wholly secular life.

Abaddon's comment about over-generalization seems to apply here.

Would it be kosher, or even make sense, to broadly insult any group of people? And even if we assume that every single religious person is homophobic, that doesn't make responding in kind right. How can we justify combating hatred with .. more hatred?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would it be kosher, or even make sense, to broadly insult any group of people? And even if we assume that every single religious person is homophobic, that doesn't make responding in kind right. How can we justify combating hatred with .. more hatred?

Point taken. But that hardly means the best course of action is "hands off." It isn't an all or none situation. You can't just write off criticism. You are criticizing here. Why wouldn't you do it with someone who is religious? Why wouldn't you comment on the irrational aspects and behaviors of their religion? Why would you think you'd be hurting them?

Some people are fragile. Treat that person with kid gloves but don't enable the behaviors that are clearly wacko. Be honest. There isn't anything sacred about religious belief and practice. It's as open to comment as anything else despite perceived cultural taboo to the contrary.

It makes perfect sense to broadly comment on irrational and destructive behaviors within groups of people. If persons in that group see that as disparaging or insulting there isn't anything you can do about that.

 

[rousseau]

Would it be kosher, or even make sense, to broadly insult any group of people? And even if we assume that every single religious person is homophobic, that doesn't make responding in kind right. How can we justify combating hatred with .. more hatred?

Point taken. But that hardly means the best course of action is "hands off." It isn't an all or none situation. You can't just write off criticism. You are criticizing here. Why wouldn't you do it with someone who is religious? Why wouldn't you comment on the irrational aspects and behaviors of their religion? Why would you think you'd be hurting them?

Some people are fragile. Treat that person with kid gloves but don't enable the behaviors that are clearly wacko. Be honest. There isn't anything sacred about religious belief and practice. It's as open to comment as anything else despite perceived cultural taboo to the contrary.

It makes perfect sense to broadly comment on irrational and destructive behaviors within groups of people. If persons in that group see that as disparaging or insulting there isn't anything you can do about that.

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

My main issue with the atheist approach is this idea that there is nothing sacred about religious belief. The equation is more complicated - spiritual approaches were devised by us, and they survive because many of us like them. If it was all negative impact to practitioners all the time, these people would be leaving religion in droves. But the objective reality is that for many religious followers belief is a net benefit, at least for the period in which they believe. Sure, some sects might be more predatory than others, but you can't generalize what is an incredibly diverse set of religious groups.

If a hardline atheist takes nothing else from this thread, it would be to at least take a few minutes to consider that some religious people follow religion for a reason, they benefit from their belief, and that their perspective can be valid. It doesn't have to be logical, rational, scientific. Take a moment to show acceptance that some religious people derive joy and happiness from their belief systems, and that doesn't necessarily need to be fixed.

But what we're seeing, I think, is atheists holding the belief that if everyone became an atheist and started thinking rationally, the world would be improved. So what's happening is that atheists invalidate the beliefs and desires of the religious to further the secular agenda. Rightly so? Maybe, but I'm not convinced about the premise that people seeing the light of reason will make things in any way better. I'm also not convinced that we will ever be able to think logically across the board, it amounts to a fantasy. So personally I see more benefit, and it brings more joy to my life, to include the religious in my circle and observe our commonality, rather than thinking of them as irrational, incompetent people who need to be corrected. You can even model positive social behavior without undermining their ontology.

 

[steve_bank]

You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons who are functional and every-day members of their communities, based on their belief system.

Do the religious deserve it?

The religious right is preaching homophobia and misogyny and that a father must hate his gay children and reduce the worth of his wife.

All while governments are preaching for equality.

Who are the ass holes. The religious who discriminate without a just cause, or governments that preach equality of opportunity for all?

Regards
DL

There is valid criticism, and then there is bigotry. There is valid criticism of Israel's settlements, and there is talking about 'Those Jews'.

I see ypu as hypocritical. You talk like those you attack.

 

[steve_bank]

Would it be kosher, or even make sense, to broadly insult any group of people? And even if we assume that every single religious person is homophobic, that doesn't make responding in kind right. How can we justify combating hatred with .. more hatred?

Point taken. But that hardly means the best course of action is "hands off." It isn't an all or none situation. You can't just write off criticism. You are criticizing here. Why wouldn't you do it with someone who is religious? Why wouldn't you comment on the irrational aspects and behaviors of their religion? Why would you think you'd be hurting them?

Some people are fragile. Treat that person with kid gloves but don't enable the behaviors that are clearly wacko. Be honest. There isn't anything sacred about religious belief and practice. It's as open to comment as anything else despite perceived cultural taboo to the contrary.

It makes perfect sense to broadly comment on irrational and destructive behaviors within groups of people. If persons in that group see that as disparaging or insulting there isn't anything you can do about that.

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

My main issue with the atheist approach is this idea that there is nothing sacred about religious belief. The equation is more complicated - spiritual approaches were devised by us, and they survive because many of us like them. If it was all negative impact to practitioners all the time, these people would be leaving religion in droves. But the objective reality is that for many religious followers belief is a net benefit, at least for the period in which they believe. Sure, some sects might be more predatory than others, but you can't generalize what is an incredibly diverse set of religious groups.

If a hardline atheist takes nothing else from this thread, it would be to at least take a few minutes to consider that some religious people follow religion for a reason, they benefit from their belief, and that their perspective can be valid. It doesn't have to be logical, rational, scientific. Take a moment to show acceptance that some religious people derive joy and happiness from their belief systems, and that doesn't necessarily need to be fixed.

But what we're seeing, I think, is atheists holding the belief that if everyone became an atheist and started thinking rationally, the world would be improved. So what's happening is that atheists invalidate the beliefs and desires of the religious to further the secular agenda. Rightly so? Maybe, but I'm not convinced about the premise that people seeing the light of reason will make things in any way better. I'm also not convinced that we will ever be able to think logically across the board, it amounts to a fantasy. So personally I see more benefit, and it brings more joy to my life, to include the religious in my circle and observe our commonality, rather than thinking of them as irrational, incompetent people who need to be corrected. You can even model positive social behavior without undermining their ontology.

Your recent post sequences is very good and expresses my general views. Power corrupts. If the atheist theist power roles were reversed would atheists in power be any better? The experiments in communism would say no, and maybe worse.

I call out abuses of religion, and zealots of any kind. Even a self anoited Agnostic Christian Bishop who thinks he is Moses down from the mountain handing own the 10 Commandments..

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You're insulting and degrading an entire class of persons who are functional and every-day members of their communities, based on their belief system.

Do the religious deserve it?

The religious right is preaching homophobia and misogyny and that a father must hate his gay children and reduce the worth of his wife.

All while governments are preaching for equality.

Who are the ass holes. The religious who discriminate without a just cause, or governments that preach equality of opportunity for all?

Regards
DL

In a lot of ways the assertion that people need to see the light of atheism echoes the same perspective that Christians had toward ~ Pagans, Africans, NA Indigenous etc.

Many atheists grossly over-generalize. They leap from "there are mistaken beliefs in religions" to "all religion is eeeeevilllll!!!" It's too bad they won't discuss the differing perspectives rather than pretend they're the ones who have the truly objective, definitive kind of knowledge that obviates all ways of life other than a wholly secular life.

Abaddon's comment about over-generalization seems to apply here.

Would it be kosher, or even make sense, to broadly insult any group of people? And even if we assume that every single religious person is homophobic, that doesn't make responding in kind right. How can we justify combating hatred with .. more hatred?

???

What is the Golden Rule, if not a reciprocity rule?

I do to those bastards what they do to innocent gays and women.

Whose side are you on, and why would you not defend your side?

For evil to grow, do not hate it or work against it.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Abaddon's comment about over-generalization seems to apply here.

Would it be kosher, or even make sense, to broadly insult any group of people?

I disagree.

If you were with a bunch of thieves who were preaching thievery, would you -- generally -- say that all thieves who preach for thieving are evil?

Is this not what I am doing?

Regards
DL