Vitriolic hatred of religion

[Brian63]

Yes, I've experienced vengefulness, but not regarding religion. I don't want people being punished for their beliefs. This is why I say 'for fuck's sake'!

Is this really how people here think? If you criticize someone's beliefs that means you want them punished??

There may be individuals who commit abuses that I do feel they should be held accountable for, and if they are punished, I freely admit to schadenfreude. But if punishment/hatred/revenge is your overarching regard for religion and religious believers, then you need to do some serious self reflection.

Okay. Maybe I have misunderstood your point then, and still do. I thought you were responding to me since I was the first in this thread to use the term "vengeance." If you were not though, no prob. If you were indeed responding to me, I think there is a miscommunication between us somewhere.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm not buying that. Some people like the Sunday-go-to-meeting idea. They may miss it if they were used to do it, and they form groups to replace the religious groups that used to do that for them.

I know various atheists who go to Unitarian churches, which are said to promote a belief in "one god at most."

I've read that theists are healthier than atheists just because they have more social connections. (I'm not endorsing that, just repeating it.) I think many atheists probably think that atheist groups -- where they won't be judged for their atheism -- would be socially and intellectually fulfilling.

I don't see any reason that atheists would have to be enemies of religion -- outspoken or otherwise -- in order to meet in groups.





People in book clubs are there only because they hate books?

... I also don't buy the whole "religion makes us extremists"-thing. I think people start with being an extremist, then go finding something to be extreme about.

Reminds me of a quote, something like, "In the metaphysical supermarket, most people have chosen their morality before they choose their religion."

Humans need community, but religion is not required for that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I suppose 'vitriolic hatred of religion' is a thing. I'm not convinced it's the predominate element in freethought. George F. Will described himself as 'an unaggressive atheist', and that wording makes sense to me.
Believers can mistake vitriol for the complete lack of reverence that comes from being convinced that their pantheon of gods, devils, angels, etc., is illusory. Hence the ad hominem argument you'll hear that one's atheism is a revolt against God's authority and that it is hatred of God. That's usually not at all what's going on. To atheists, hating God is like hating Simon Legree or hating the tooth fairy. No denying that freethought humor can be caustic, but that tends to be the tone of humor that is directed toward the folly of mankind.

I think you confused the point of this thread. These ex-muslims are all saying that they started out with vitriolic hatred, but after a few years they were fine with Islam again. They just stayed atheist. So they did no longer have a vitriolic hatred of religion anymore. So for them vitriolic hatred, was no longer a thing.

My question is if there's any other ex-religious here who started out hating their old religion, and over time lost the hate, but staying atheist.

They were fine with Islam because they were no longer being persecuted by it. That's the only reason they were able to calm down, because they were living in a culture that accepted their new identity, they were free, there were alternatives. It's a no-brainer, obviously.

Vitriolic hatred of an abusive guardian is understandable for an intelligent person who's identity is not so fixed and who is a prisoner, Stockholm Syndrome notwithstanding.

Most of the ex-Muslims on the podcast were born in Sweden. But sure, they all came from very religious families. It's also a huge cast. It's over 20 who are revolving on the podcast.

Lol, Stockholm syndrome, literally in Stockholm. If you did it on purpose, genius

 

[Tigers!]

Lol, Stockholm syndrome, literally in Stockholm. If you did it on purpose, genius

Tack så mycket
Tack

 

[DrZoidberg]

They did mention something interesting. They said that since the 80'ies young people in the Middle-East are increasingly starting to question the Quran and conservative religion. It's gaining speed and has now reached a point where they're considering to outlaw atheism in Egypt. Ie, making it illegal to be an atheist. To some people that may come across as evidence that it's as bad as ever. But on the podcast they were in agreement that it's a validation of that fundamentalist Islam in the Middle-East is dying. If fundamentalist Islam was secure, they'd never consider outlawing atheism.

Worth noting is that apostacy already is illegal, ie leaving Islam. While legally punishable by death, the way it works in practice is that apostates are released and the ruling is made public. Private citizens are permitted to execute apostates on sight, which is how it's done. Immediately upon release some Islamic group or another will swiftly carry out the punishment, so the state never gets around to executing anyone for apostasy. A very strange system. My point with bringing this up, is that it makes it more clear what the banning of atheism is about. It's to prevent non-Egyptians to talk to Egyptians about atheism. Any foreigner saying they're atheists can be swiftly prevented from influencing Egyptians or otherwise corrupting them.

Just wait until they find out about the Internet. Boy are they going to feel silly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's an awesome podcast. Sorry to say in Swedish. It would be a smash if they spoke English

They mentioned something else interesting about Muslims causing trouble in the west. It matters if a religion is a majority religion or minority religion. It will shape itself after it's crowd. If it's a majority religion it will become militant and aggressive. It'll make demands on the rest of society and try to ram it's beliefs down their throats. Minority religions can't afford to annoy those in power, so it become humble and permissive. Religious rules become aspirations rather than written in stone.

The problem with Muslims who move from Africa or the Middle-East to Europe is that they have a majority type Islam and behave as if they're still alpha in the west. This leads to endless conflict. The losers will of course inevitably be the minority. This is why, over time, the type of religion softens and becomes permissive. They mentioned that the biggest Muslim minority population in Europe is in Bulgaria. They never cause any problems. Why? Because it's a population that has had to get along with a Christian majority for hundreds of years. They mentioned some statistics. 39% of all Bulgarian Muslims don't go to mosque. 0.05% of Bulgarian Muslims don't think the sharia should be applied.

The good news is that we don't need to do anything to solve the problem. Over time it'll solve itself.

One of the guys on the podcast is a theologian and an expert on Islam. He's also an atheist. He had a great quote "Religion is as spineless as it is adaptable"

 

[Politesse]

Leave the vengeance and hatred to the religionists and their vengeful, hateful god and instead let's talk about rightful anger.

And to the religious believers and their apologists, how do you discern the difference? How do you recognize anger versus hate or vengeance?

I don't want to hate... that is one reason I am angry about the toxic, backward, inhumane nature of religion. And vengeance? WTF? I don't want revenge on anyone. I want them to examine their inhumane belief system honestly and maturely so as not to continue contributing to a world of religious poison. For fuck's sake.

I can see why you would have trouble discerning those things. You voluntarily define yourself, even name yourself by your anger, but don't seem to have really considered where it might lead you or others.

Did you know that all who hate think they are walking the path of righteousness alone? They do. Every single one. No one wakes up, cackles, and goes "I'm going to hate other people for the sake of being evil, mwuhaha!" They always believe that they are "rightfully angry" about slights done to them and to such vulnerables as they value.

 

[Angry Floof]

Leave the vengeance and hatred to the religionists and their vengeful, hateful god and instead let's talk about rightful anger.

And to the religious believers and their apologists, how do you discern the difference? How do you recognize anger versus hate or vengeance?

I don't want to hate... that is one reason I am angry about the toxic, backward, inhumane nature of religion. And vengeance? WTF? I don't want revenge on anyone. I want them to examine their inhumane belief system honestly and maturely so as not to continue contributing to a world of religious poison. For fuck's sake.

I can see why you would have trouble discerning those things. You voluntarily define yourself, even name yourself by your anger, but don't seem to have really considered where it might lead you or others.

Did you know that all who hate think they are walking the path of righteousness alone? They do. Every single one. No one wakes up, cackles, and goes "I'm going to hate other people for the sake of being evil, mwuhaha!" They always believe that they are "rightfully angry" about slights done to them and to such vulnerables as they value.

Please just stop replying to my posts. You don't read them. You don't understand them. Your responses are religionist reactionary and non sequitur.

I can see why you'd have trouble understanding my posts, though. I say things about your beliefs and your religious identity that you don't like, so you will grab anything and twist it into what you want to see. My user name is a joke. It's not an important label for myself. It's meant to be funny. I often am angry, but anger does not my any means define me.

I can see why you'd think so, though, given that in this community, it's my posts about religion that get your attention. I can see how you'd have trouble seeing me as anything but through the religious framework, which is that your entire personhood and definition as a human being is based in an ideological identity. The religious often find it difficult to understand anyone who doesn't think that way about themselves or the world around them.

What "slights" are you referring to? I suspect it's that tired, stupid lie that religionists love to spew without a thought: that atheists must have had a bad experience with religion and that serves as the basis for their atheism. The church I grew up in was full of kindness. No one there even so much as raised their voice at me.

But thanks for offering yet another instance of religious believers and apologists assuming that I need to have things happen to me personally or else I can't care about it happening to others or spend any time thinking about it.

It's relevant, though, that you would do that. Christianity is deeply based in authoritarianism, which is not just an ideology but human psychology. If you read The Authoritarians (free ebook, link in my sig), which is about research and not opinions, it explains that authoritarian followers, most often the religious, demonstrate a much lower level of empathy for others than their non-religious or otherwise more liberal minded neighbors.

Almost every religionists who has taken offense at my comments about religion has accused me of this. But again, it's not surprising since few religionists hold that empathetic framework of reality that might offer them more insight into how other people operate. Now that I've mentioned it, you will no doubt be more careful in the future about assuming that atheists must have been abused by religious people or else they wouldn't criticize religion. But hopefully, you will at the same time have the empathy to understand that many atheists have been hurt and abused by religion, which might have been their doorway out of religion, but is not the basis of their criticisms. We tend to look deeper than that, and religionists do whatever they can to NOT look deeper into their own minds and hearts beyond conforming and defending the ideology. Doubt is a sin, after all, right?

I doubt you'll actually read any of this, though, and the ebook I mentioned is also something you absolutely will not read. What's really funny about that is that the research predicts that you won't read it.

Anyway, I stand by my comments. You wouldn't know the difference between anger and hate, and your religionist mental framework won't allow you to without some level of discomfort.

Take responsibility for the backward, stunted, inhumane social club you defend. And that's all it is - human social dynamics hijacked through cognitive weakness and ignorance. That's what you defend. Anything good in religion can be had without religion and you know that. You're just defending a tribal identity.

 

[Politesse]

Please just stop replying to my posts. You don't read them. You don't understand them. Your responses are religionist reactionary and non sequitur.

Given your self-described deep understanding of authoritarianism, it's a bit interesting that you don't see the irony in demanding (and let us be clear, you don't actually have the right to demand) that I never question the things you post. But I will honor your request, as I have done for Metaphor recently and others over the years. As you are an admin, I cannot actually "ignore" you as would be customary, but I will do my best to remember not to reply.

 

[Angry Floof]

Please just stop replying to my posts. You don't read them. You don't understand them. Your responses are religionist reactionary and non sequitur.

Given your self-described deep understanding of authoritarianism, it's a bit interesting that you don't see the irony in demanding (and let us be clear, you don't actually have the right to demand) that I never question the things you post. But I will honor your request, as I have done for Metaphor recently and others over the years. As you are an admin, I cannot actually "ignore" you as would be customary, but I will do my best to remember not to reply.

I have never demanded no one question my posts, but I understand how you might project that very religious approach to not questioning, and that you would yet again demonstrate that you cannot respond to my posts without misrepresenting them.

And again, you won't read the research I mentioned, and the research itself predicts that you won't. There's a reason for that.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

[
Did you know that all who hate think they are walking the path of righteousness alone?

Well, no. Some peoples' motivations are based on wealth accumulation, or fame, etc, and they make entirely amoral decisions based on that. Righteousness does not enter the equation for some.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Please just stop replying to my posts. You don't read them. You don't understand them. Your responses are religionist reactionary and non sequitur.

Given your self-described deep understanding of authoritarianism, it's a bit interesting that you don't see the irony in demanding (and let us be clear, you don't actually have the right to demand) that I never question the things you post. But I will honor your request, as I have done for Metaphor recently and others over the years. As you are an admin, I cannot actually "ignore" you as would be customary, but I will do my best to remember not to reply.

I have never demanded no one question my posts, but I understand how you might project that very religious approach to not questioning, and that you would yet again demonstrate that you cannot respond to my posts without misrepresenting them.

And again, you won't read the research I mentioned, and the research itself predicts that you won't. There's a reason for that.

Religion is big on obedience and disobedience. Given time, that gets stamped onto the brain. But there's a great irony about religion on this subject, namely that it demands both obedience and disobedience, it just depends on the claim. So if I'm a devoutly religious person I become very good at doing both, odd as that sounds. On the subject of authority I am typically instructed to both obey and disobey authority, it simply depends on the source of the authority and what is being instructed or "authorized."

When I was a child I can remember my parents in no uncertain terms telling us that ghosts were not real, that there is "no such thing." Yet they prayed to a "holy ghost" all the time. That certainly sets up some interesting thoughts and behaviors.

 

[Politesse]

[
Did you know that all who hate think they are walking the path of righteousness alone?

Well, no. Some peoples' motivations are based on wealth accumulation, or fame, etc, and they make entirely amoral decisions based on that. Righteousness does not enter the equation for some.

My experience has been that such people do not see the accumulation of wealth as a moral wrong; or at least, no more wrong for them than for anyone else. I've never met anyone who was after fame, but I imagine their perspective is similar.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do religious people hate other religions and people of other religions? Do religions teach and condone this hate?

 

[Politesse]

Some do, and some do not. Those that do create enormous suffering for themselves and others, and their example is nothing to aspire to.

 

[southernhybrid]

Do religious people hate other religions and people of other religions? Do religions teach and condone this hate?

In my experience, it's the conservative versions of religious believers who feel they are better than others, or who believe that their god will reward them and punish those outside their faith. That is probably why I differentiate between religious zealots and those who find comfort in more liberal religious myths. Religion is like politics. Some take their political ideological beliefs to an extreme, willing to kill or die for them, while others are more reasonable and see their political beliefs and values as ideals, not something to use as a weapon.

Political ideology is also a type of myth. What we expect or hope for rarely if ever becomes a reality, especially if it's based on narrow mindedness. By that, I mean the idea that it's my way or nothing. There is no compromise among those who hold far left or far right political ideologies. That's as dangerous as religious extremism, imo. Human civilization, if we can call it that, is based on myths.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do religious people hate other religions and people of other religions? Do religions teach and condone this hate?

In my experience, it's the conservative versions of religious believers who feel they are better than others, or who believe that their god will reward them and punish those outside their faith. That is probably why I differentiate between religious zealots and those who find comfort in more liberal religious myths. Religion is like politics. Some take their political ideological beliefs to an extreme, willing to kill or die for them, while others are more reasonable and see their political beliefs and values as ideals, not something to use as a weapon.

Political ideology is also a type of myth. What we expect or hope for rarely if ever becomes a reality, especially if it's based on narrow mindedness. By that, I mean the idea that it's my way or nothing. There is no compromise among those who hold far left or far right political ideologies. That's as dangerous as religious extremism, imo. Human civilization, if we can call it that, is based on myths.

I like Karen Armstongs's model of religious extremism. Militant religion is the last step before a rejection of the faith. People who feel secure in their faith are relaxed about it. People who are insecure about whether they're doing the right thing are more likely to become very extreme in their behaviours, as a way to convince themselves they are right. They double down. I think it makes a lot of sense. In a similar way, when we first switch to a new belief it's easy to go overboard and be a bit extreme about it, because it is a new belief and we're still in the process of convincing ourselves it is true. But once we're secure in our faith we become more relaxed about it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the kind of purely emotional reactionary hatred of religion does exist as described in the OP and can be a short-lived transitional phase. However, I think there is also a more intellectually grounded disdain for religion rooted in reasoned understanding of the inherent harm done by authoritarian monotheism rooted in irrational faith. The latter is more long term and sustained b/c the more knowledge one gains about religion and it's historical and current impact on society the more negative and harmful religion looks. I'd argue that someone like Dawkins is the latter and that most so called "militant atheism" is mostly just honest, rational, and warranted objections to the intellectual and moral that religion does.

I was raised moderate Congregational protestant, then my dad remarried to a Catholic and I was forced to attend a Catholic school in 6th grade (until I got kicked out), and attend Catholic mass and go to "youth groups". I consciously rejected Christianity in my mid teens based a little bit on finding it absurd, but mostly b/c I thought it's teachings were bigoted and immoral. I remember also thinking that the Jesus cursing the fig tree b/c it had no fruit made Jesus look rather petty and narcissistic. For the first 5 years or so (till early 20's), I didn't really focus much energy on Christianity but rather looked into other religions and philosophies (Taoism, Buddhism, Native American spiritualism). Although I found eastern philosophies far more appealing than monotheism, I ultimately realized that I didn't need or buy into any form of "spiritualism". In the 25 years since I studied history, politics, and human psychology and behavior and began to understand more and more the negative impact of monotheism and faith-based epistemology on forms of human progress (intellectual, political, moral). As I became more politically aware and active, social progress became more important to me and thus the enemies of progress (of which religion is one of the greatest) came into sharper relief. This is reinforced by the fact that I am well aware of the empirical data that links degree of Abrahamic religiosity to many negative elements of society, from climate change denial to misogyny, homophobia, racism, and authoritarian disdain for real democracy. And these things are not some abuse or distortion of Abrahamic religion, but an inherent byproduct of it's core assumptions and values within it's founding doctrines. The negative association between level of religiosity and these negative social/psychological forces is reliably observed whether doing comparisons between individuals within a single community, within a community over time, between different communities or US states, between types of regions (urban/rural), or between countries there are a reliable association.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think the kind of purely emotional reactionary hatred of religion does exist as described in the OP and can be a short-lived transitional phase. However, I think there is also a more intellectually grounded disdain for religion rooted in reasoned understanding of the inherent harm done by authoritarian monotheism rooted in irrational faith. The latter is more long term and sustained b/c the more knowledge one gains about religion and it's historical and current impact on society the more negative and harmful religion looks. I'd argue that someone like Dawkins is the latter and that most so called "militant atheism" is mostly just honest, rational, and warranted objections to the intellectual and moral that religion does.

I was raised moderate Congregational protestant, then my dad remarried to a Catholic and I was forced to attend a Catholic school in 6th grade (until I got kicked out), and attend Catholic mass and go to "youth groups". I consciously rejected Christianity in my mid teens based a little bit on finding it absurd, but mostly b/c I thought it's teachings were bigoted and immoral. I remember also thinking that the Jesus cursing the fig tree b/c it had no fruit made Jesus look rather petty and narcissistic. For the first 5 years or so (till early 20's), I didn't really focus much energy on Christianity but rather looked into other religions and philosophies (Taoism, Buddhism, Native American spiritualism). Although I found eastern philosophies far more appealing than monotheism, I ultimately realized that I didn't need or buy into any form of "spiritualism". In the 25 years since I studied history, politics, and human psychology and behavior and began to understand more and more the negative impact of monotheism and faith-based epistemology on forms of human progress (intellectual, political, moral). As I became more politically aware and active, social progress became more important to me and thus the enemies of progress (of which religion is one of the greatest) came into sharper relief. This is reinforced by the fact that I am well aware of the empirical data that links degree of Abrahamic religiosity to many negative elements of society, from climate change denial to misogyny, homophobia, racism, and authoritarian disdain for real democracy. And these things are not some abuse or distortion of Abrahamic religion, but an inherent byproduct of it's core assumptions and values within it's founding doctrines. The negative association between level of religiosity and these negative social/psychological forces is reliably observed whether doing comparisons between individuals within a single community, within a community over time, between different communities or US states, between types of regions (urban/rural), or between countries there are a reliable association.

Sure, most of what you have said has some basis in truth, imo, but do you honestly find liberal versions of religion to be harmful? Take Politesse, as an example of someone who enjoys liberal religion. Hope he doesn't mind mentioning him. He has labeled himself an agnostic Christian, finds some enjoyment in a variety of religions, and has mentioned that he attends or has attended a UU fellowship, which gave me the impression that he's inclined to like the principles of Unitarianism. I don't see that type of religious belief as the least bit harmful. In fact, I see it as beneficial for many people. I cold easily fit in with a UU fellowship, assuming it was a very diverse one, including diversity of belief. I have never lived near one, so it's not a possibility, but I do like Unitarianism in principle. I do see some value in some of the myths that humans have created. And, to be very honest, I don't understand why some atheists put that variety of religion in the same pot as the more conservative, extremist versions of religion.

And, there are so many good, loving, generous, religious believers, there must be some benefit that they receive from their collection of myths. I'm not making the claim that religion always reflects or influences one's morality, but I do think it can in either a positive or negative way. Just look at the crazed evangelical Christians/QAnon idiots who invaded the US capital building on January 6th. That would be an example of the negative impact of extremist religion.

The opposite extreme might be Unitarians who promote social justice as a group, or how they open their doors to offer holiday dinner to the lonely in the community etc. Just because they are both forms of religion, doesn't mean they have anything in common. One promotes a narrow minded mythology that can promote violence under certain circumstances, and that also distances itself from anything resembling reality. The other promotes diversity, generosity and justice, while not taking any one set of myths too literally. It's hard for me to imagine a UU willing to kill or die for religion. I just don't think it's fair to put all of religion into one basket and then label it based on the worst parts. I guess we just see things from a different perspective.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The opposite extreme might be Unitarians who promote social justice as a group, or how they open their doors to offer holiday dinner to the lonely in the community etc. Just because they are both forms of religion, doesn't mean they have anything in common. One promotes a narrow minded mythology that can promote violence under certain circumstances, and that also distances itself from anything resembling reality. The other promotes diversity, generosity and justice, while not taking any one set of myths too literally. It's hard for me to imagine a UU willing to kill or die for religion. I just don't think it's fair to put all of religion into one basket and then label it based on the worst parts. I guess we just see things from a different perspective.

But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be prepared to kill for your religion. Religion is fundamentally to be part of something greater than yourself, and you use some abstract symbol to bind yourself together. You create a story, and myths and aspirational behaviours. Perhaps a uniform clothing? Maybe hats? This is the kind of thinking that allowed the Allies to defeat Hitler in WW2. I'd say that was a good thing.

I don't see much difference between religion, nationalism, ideology, sports team supporting, being a punk rocker. They're all similar movements with similar results, they activate large groups of people towards shared goals. Which is essentially what civilisation is all about.