What’s the worst thing in religion?

[DBT]

The question is, why exactly is the buyer stupidly believing the salesman's pitch?...it could be because an emotion (the desire to buy the house) is overriding the buyers normal application of reason.

In this case it may be an example of unconscious or semi conscious self deception, the buyers willingness to believe the sales pitch which is driven by an overriding desire to acquire the object of desire, the house.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The question is, why exactly is the buyer stupidly believing the salesman's pitch?...it could be because an emotion (the desire to buy the house) is overriding the buyers normal application of reason.

In this case it may be an example of unconscious or semi conscious self deception, the buyers willingness to believe the sales pitch which is driven by an overriding desire to acquire the object of desire, the house.

There's been studies. Religions that make sense aren't convincing. They have to be preposterous to gain any traction. That's the clue.

Truth when it comes to buying houses and cars is a different kind of truth than whether or not God exists, ie not truth at all.

I think it's actually quite deep. I think everybody on some level understands it's only a metaphor. That's what makes it self deception when they inspite of this claim that God exists

 

[DBT]

For all practical purposes, it's all in the sales pitch and the willingness of the customer to buy into the deal being offered....not including social and cultural indoctrination from an early age, of course.

 

[Atheos]

1. The worst must surely be, living your life after a lie.

There's no evidence that religion is a "lie" per se. A lie is a falsehood which is told with intent to deceive, and it implies that the creators of the religion knew beforehand that what they were saying was untrue. Demonstrating that there was any intent to deceive is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Isn't it much more likely that people simply believe absurd things for the sake of feeling significant?

Some religion is based on outright lies, other religions are based on misunderstandings, still others founded upon observational wisdom, philosophical ideologies, etc.

I would think that it is fair to say that the single most popular religion in the world, Christianity is based on a number of outright lies. Someone at some point came up with various lies that formed the core components leading to the development of this religion. The belief that an individual's essence continues to live after one dies is an appealing one, but it is taught as if it is an absolute fact. This is a lie, as there is no evidence that it is true. Based on this foundational principal people are able to be convinced that what they do to make their afterlife more pleasant is considerably more important than what they do to have a pleasant physical life. This is a lie, and it's a really big one.

 

[Malintent]

The worst thing in religion is ion. Too excitable.

 

[Kharakov]

The worst thing in religion is ion. Too excitable.

The problem is those that want to re-lion religion's regions. Don't need a lion roaming Rome...

 

[TSwizzle]

There's no evidence that religion is a "lie" per se. A lie is a falsehood which is told with intent to deceive, and it implies that the creators of the religion knew beforehand that what they were saying was untrue. Demonstrating that there was any intent to deceive is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

A lot of people have gone to great lengths to perpetuate the "falsehoods" as truth. The resurrection scam for starters. Then there are the various prophets that claim to have spoken to god or his emissary. Chancers, the lot of them. Still, when the audience is keen to believe any old codswallop I suppose they can get away with it.

 

[dockeen]

Eternal Torment

 

[DrZoidberg]

Eternal Torment

You're exaggerating. You'll stop hearing their chatter when you die <> eternity.

 

[arcadia]

Today, the cult near Utica where two parents beat one of their 2 teenaged boys to death by hitting his genitals and thighs, while 4 other cult members tried to do the same to the other son. Either that or one bomb or another killing dozens in the Middle East. Last name of the Utica folks was Leonard if you want to google it.

 

[arcadia]

Or, maybe it's just the hundreds of millions of people who feel terribly guilty about silly things done or thought.
Or, who think that there is an entity who watches everything they do, and which listens to their prayers.

 

[Juma]

Painting a layer of warm feelings on grievious events as the (fictious) world catastrophy of the flood.

 

[DBT]

Freud had some interesting things to say about faith and religion:

''Freud’s best-known ideas regarding faith centre on the individual’s wish to have a protective father figure with whom he or she can feel identified. One of his texts describes what religion undertakes to do for people as follows:

It gives them information about the origin and coming into existence of the universe, it assures them of its protection and of ultimate happiness in the ups and downs of life and it directs their thoughts and actions by precepts which it lays down with its whole authority. Thus it fulfils three functions. … t satisfies the human thirst for knowledge; it soothes the fear that men feel of the dangers and vicissitudes of life, when it assures them of a happy ending and offers them comfort in unhappiness…[and] it issues precepts and lays down prohibitions and restrictions[1]

Freud goes on to explain that what unites these three seemingly disparate aspects of religion (instruction, consolation and ethical demands) is the fact that they are all tied to the child’s view of his or her father. The God-creator whom believers call father, Freud writes, ‘really is the father, with all the magnificence in which he once appeared to the small child’.[2] He created us, he protected us and he taught us to restrict our desires. Freud explains that when one grows up one still remains helpless in many ways in the face of the dangers of the world, but one recognises that the father cannot really be a source of protection from them. Thus, Freud explains, the believer, harks back to the mnemic image of the father whom in his childhood he so greatly overvalued. He exalts the image into a deity and makes it into something contemporary and real. The effective strength of this mnemic image and the persistence of his need for protection jointly sustain his belief in God.[3]

These needs and wishes for the protective father explain not only the idea of there being a personal God who created us and loves us, but also our sense of guilt in relation to him. Our feelings of guilt are expressions of our conscience, which we form with the critical inner voices of our parents in an effort to be assured of their love. These voices are now perceived as coming from God. Freud concludes:
''The amount of protection and happy satisfaction assigned to an individual depends on his fulfilment of the ethical demands; his love of God and his consciousness of being loved by God are the foundations of the security with which he is armed against the dangers of the external world and of his human environment. Finally, in prayer he has assured himself a direct influence on the divine will and with it a share in the divine omnipotence.[4]''

 

[DrZoidberg]

Freud had some interesting things to say about faith and religion:

''Freud’s best-known ideas regarding faith centre on the individual’s wish to have a protective father figure with whom he or she can feel identified. One of his texts describes what religion undertakes to do for people as follows:

It gives them information about the origin and coming into existence of the universe, it assures them of its protection and of ultimate happiness in the ups and downs of life and it directs their thoughts and actions by precepts which it lays down with its whole authority. Thus it fulfils three functions. … t satisfies the human thirst for knowledge; it soothes the fear that men feel of the dangers and vicissitudes of life, when it assures them of a happy ending and offers them comfort in unhappiness…[and] it issues precepts and lays down prohibitions and restrictions[1]

Freud goes on to explain that what unites these three seemingly disparate aspects of religion (instruction, consolation and ethical demands) is the fact that they are all tied to the child’s view of his or her father. The God-creator whom believers call father, Freud writes, ‘really is the father, with all the magnificence in which he once appeared to the small child’.[2] He created us, he protected us and he taught us to restrict our desires. Freud explains that when one grows up one still remains helpless in many ways in the face of the dangers of the world, but one recognises that the father cannot really be a source of protection from them. Thus, Freud explains, the believer, harks back to the mnemic image of the father whom in his childhood he so greatly overvalued. He exalts the image into a deity and makes it into something contemporary and real. The effective strength of this mnemic image and the persistence of his need for protection jointly sustain his belief in God.[3]

These needs and wishes for the protective father explain not only the idea of there being a personal God who created us and loves us, but also our sense of guilt in relation to him. Our feelings of guilt are expressions of our conscience, which we form with the critical inner voices of our parents in an effort to be assured of their love. These voices are now perceived as coming from God. Freud concludes:
''The amount of protection and happy satisfaction assigned to an individual depends on his fulfilment of the ethical demands; his love of God and his consciousness of being loved by God are the foundations of the security with which he is armed against the dangers of the external world and of his human environment. Finally, in prayer he has assured himself a direct influence on the divine will and with it a share in the divine omnipotence.[4]''

Very etnocentric though. This doesn't fit Hinduism or Paganism at all. Barely Buddhism. Freud was very influenced by Nietzsche and Nietzsche was very focused on Christianity.

 

[Perspicuo]

Prejudice. Seeing people and acting towards them with preconceived and ill-adaptive preconceptions. No religion is free from this.

 

[DBT]

Very etnocentric though. This doesn't fit Hinduism or Paganism at all. Barely Buddhism. Freud was very influenced by Nietzsche and Nietzsche was very focused on Christianity.

In expression, maybe, but not necessarily in principle.

We (the believer) tend to look for meaning and justice, someone or something, a God or gods, a 'higher power,' etc, to care, appeal to, to cajole, to give offerings in exchange for tangible benefits, rain, a good harvest, healthy children....if not a farther figure, a higher power, spirits, the ghosts of ancestors....

Yahweh and his burnt offerings, Aztec's offering the ultimate sacrifice in order to appease the gods and have them bestow their blessings upon the land.

Just an exchange of figureheads and power structures, from God to gods from to a 'higher power' to the spirits of the rivers and forest, plants and animals, the spirits may, if not angered, bestow their blessings upon the believer in the form of material benefit or reward in the afterlife....be a good warrior and sup with the gods in the halls of Valhalla .

 

[DrZoidberg]

Very etnocentric though. This doesn't fit Hinduism or Paganism at all. Barely Buddhism. Freud was very influenced by Nietzsche and Nietzsche was very focused on Christianity.

In expression, maybe, but not necessarily in principle.

We (the believer) tend to look for meaning and justice, someone or something, a God or gods, a 'higher power,' etc, to care, appeal to, to cajole, to give offerings in exchange for tangible benefits, rain, a good harvest, healthy children....if not a farther figure, a higher power, spirits, the ghosts of ancestors....

Yahweh and his burnt offerings, Aztec's offering the ultimate sacrifice in order to appease the gods and have them bestow their blessings upon the land.

Just an exchange of figureheads and power structures, from God to gods from to a 'higher power' to the spirits of the rivers and forest, plants and animals, the spirits may, if not angered, bestow their blessings upon the believer in the form of material benefit or reward in the afterlife....be a good warrior and sup with the gods in the halls of Valhalla .

OK. But Freud went on and on about father figures. The symbolic phallus. Pagan gods are more embodiments of the forces of nature. Very little comfort to be had.

I respect your position. I just think you are trying too hard. Making something fit that only superficially fits

 

[DBT]

In expression, maybe, but not necessarily in principle.

We (the believer) tend to look for meaning and justice, someone or something, a God or gods, a 'higher power,' etc, to care, appeal to, to cajole, to give offerings in exchange for tangible benefits, rain, a good harvest, healthy children....if not a farther figure, a higher power, spirits, the ghosts of ancestors....

Yahweh and his burnt offerings, Aztec's offering the ultimate sacrifice in order to appease the gods and have them bestow their blessings upon the land.

Just an exchange of figureheads and power structures, from God to gods from to a 'higher power' to the spirits of the rivers and forest, plants and animals, the spirits may, if not angered, bestow their blessings upon the believer in the form of material benefit or reward in the afterlife....be a good warrior and sup with the gods in the halls of Valhalla .

OK. But Freud went on and on about father figures. The symbolic phallus. Pagan gods are more embodiments of the forces of nature. Very little comfort to be had.

I respect your position. I just think you are trying too hard. Making something fit that only superficially fits

The details do vary and are not necessarily compatible, but the key elements, fear, desire, hope, need, advantage, being cared for, etc, as the drivers of faith being the link to be found between all religions. Exchange father figure for totem spirit or the ancestors watching over their tribe...

 

[DBT]

OK. But Freud went on and on about father figures. The symbolic phallus.

I think that is one of Freud's own flaws...he seemed to see phallic symbols everywhere.

 

[Perspicuo]

In expression, maybe, but not necessarily in principle.

We (the believer) tend to look for meaning and justice, someone or something, a God or gods, a 'higher power,' etc, to care, appeal to, to cajole, to give offerings in exchange for tangible benefits, rain, a good harvest, healthy children....if not a farther figure, a higher power, spirits, the ghosts of ancestors....

Yahweh and his burnt offerings, Aztec's offering the ultimate sacrifice in order to appease the gods and have them bestow their blessings upon the land.

Just an exchange of figureheads and power structures, from God to gods from to a 'higher power' to the spirits of the rivers and forest, plants and animals, the spirits may, if not angered, bestow their blessings upon the believer in the form of material benefit or reward in the afterlife....be a good warrior and sup with the gods in the halls of Valhalla .

OK. But Freud went on and on about father figures. The symbolic phallus. Pagan gods are more embodiments of the forces of nature. Very little comfort to be had.

I respect your position. I just think you are trying too hard. Making something fit that only superficially fits

Buddhism is the perfect example. First it seemed to tend towards the non-theist. Then they invented boddhisattvas to pray to. Ultimately the pure lands. If that isn't "Daddy/mommy come save me, I'm poor wretched, weak and meek", I don't know what is.