God and religion

[ViolentPanda]

Religion makes me angry. Not the idea of god - the reality of which existence strikes me as a matter of ultimate irrelevance - but the sociological manifestation of religion makes me really angry.

Because although the massive majority of any religion's believers are not violent extremists, there's something enormously offensive in the legitimacy afforded to something with no more sensible validity than star-signs and fairy tales.

And more self-serving than star-signs and fairy tales will ever be. Many (it seems to me at least a significant minority) believers appear to believe on the basis of a post mortem quid pro quo, rather than because they're convinced by any of the mythology or theology.

Indoctrination of children - teaching children to suspend their critical judgments on this one field of understanding and just accept. It's bullshit and abusive.

Yep. Apart from anything else, you're generating cognitive dissonance in children by saying religion/their religious culture should be exempt from critique. It's psychologically-harmful if at the same time you're attempting to instil the building blocks of critical thinking.

Rules, social constructs and laws that stem from religion (abortion, sexual double standards...)

State funding / tax exemption for schools, churches etc - less money for healthcare or whatever so millions can be spent protecting the idea of sky pixies.

A fundamental moral bankruptcy : is something ethical or not? Religions encourage ppl to check an arbitrary rule book rather than examine their own innate understanding of right and wrong.

Not helped by the fact that in "the west", much of our ethics and morals are still based around some form of Christian framework, so that superstructure of Christianity makes the arbitrariness a function of the system, when arbitrariness should actually be eliminated.

Anyway, it seems the efficient way to shut up angry atheists is to say "Dawkins" to them. Whatever. I am angry. But I don't often bother vocalising it. If someone is a Tory, they tend to accept that ppl will challenge them for that. Might not like it but... But with region there's this whole fucking social construct that challenging them is beyond the pale. I don't see the difference.

Organised religion was (and still is) power. Power never likes being challenged, especially about the basis of that power.

 

[8ball]

I treat anybody who tells me that they are "spiritual" with as much suspicion as anybody who follows an organised religion or a cult.

I treat them with far more suspicion.

 

[DotCommunist]

Religions encourage ppl to check an arbitrary rule book rather than examine their own innate understanding of right and wrong.

see this is why people say Dawkins. It can do- if they are the sort of god-bots who have never thought beyond the mantras and the rules and the quotations. Quite often people aren't that dumb and make ethical decisions with regard to the teachings of their faith but not absolutely. Is that hypocritical and flexible? perhaps. But was man made for the sabbath or the sabbath made for man. I think it does great diservice to a huge amount of people to write them off. Do you think I don't feel outrage when I read about all them kids stuffed in a septic tank by nuns? or seeing daesh hacking off heads with a paring knife? the idea that if faith was to magically go away violent, sadistic and evil people wouldn't find another expression for their abhorrent behaviour seems odd to my mind

 

[Johnny Vodka]

I have two hippie cousins who reject Christianity but who are into a lot of spiritual gaff and they keep lecturing me about the power of positive thinking and some such at family gatherings.

While I'm not a fan of the Abrahamic religions, I find Buddhism interesting (maybe because Buddhist ideas do seem to intersect with experiences of psychedelics) and also pagan stuff (I guess because they touch on nature, when Abrahamic religions are very man-focussed).

 

[Reno]

While I'm not a fan of the Abrahamic religions, I find Buddhism interesting (maybe because Buddhist ideas do seem to intersect with experiences of psychedelics) and also pagan stuff (I guess because they touch on nature, when Abrahamic religions are very man-focussed).

Buddhism certainly seems comparatively benign, but you still have to believe a lot of supernatural stuff like Karma and reincarnation, which I can't get on board with. Why can't we just be moral beings and treat others well without the threat of mystical payback time ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Buddhism certainly seems comparatively benign, but you still have to believe a lot of supernatural stuff like Karma and reincarnation, which I can't get on board with. Why can't we just be moral beings and treat others well without the threat of mystical payback time ?

Absolutely. There's something spirit-sapping about the idea of karma. Do you really need a selfish reason to do a nice thing?

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Buddhism certainly seems comparatively benign, but you still have to believe a lot of supernatural stuff like Karma and reincarnation, which I can't get on board with. Why can't we just be moral beings and treat others well without the threat of mystical payback time ?

I just like the stuff about "Is there really a you?" and the Buddhist interpretation of death, short of karma and reincarnation, that we live on in other things.

 

[DotCommunist]

While I'm not a fan of the Abrahamic religions, I find Buddhism interesting (maybe because Buddhist ideas do seem to intersect with experiences of psychedelics) and also pagan stuff (I guess because they touch on nature, when Abrahamic religions are very man-focussed).

yeah I'm sure you'd get on so so well with wiccans given your attitudes.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

yeah I'm sure you'd get on so so well with wiccans given your attitudes.

I used to be chums with a Wiccan. We lost touch.

 

[spanglechick]

see this is why people say Dawkins. It can do- if they are the sort of god-bots who have never thought beyond the mantras and the rules and the quotations. Quite often people aren't that dumb and make ethical decisions with regard to the teachings of their faith but not absolutely. Is that hypocritical and flexible? perhaps. But was man made for the sabbath or the sabbath made for man. I think it does great diservice to a huge amount of people to write them off. Do you think I don't feel outrage when I read about all them kids stuffed in a septic tank by nuns? or seeing daesh hacking off heads with a paring knife? the idea that if faith was to magically go away violent, sadistic and evil people wouldn't find another expression for their abhorrent behaviour seems odd to my mind

i'm not talking about the big evils: noncing choirboys and the like. Just -- what is the value of a whole list of commandments, or rules about kosher fucking bottled water - why does a book have to get involved for ppl to justify their opinions on tattoos or whether two blokes can fall in love and bring up kids? the people who adhere to those rules aren't monsters - and narrowing the debate to monstrous acts lets religion off too lightly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i'm not talking about the big evils: noncing choirboys and the like. Just -- what is the value of a whole list of commandments, or rules about kosher fucking bottled water - why does a book have to get involved for ppl to justify their opinions on tattoos or whether two blokes can fall in love and bring up kids? the people who adhere to those rules aren't monsters - and narrowing the debate to monstrous acts lets religion off too lightly.

I agree completely with this. I think you've slightly misunderstood, DC. It's not a case of writing people off, it's a case of being exasperated by, and objecting to, the intrusion of organised religions into everyday life.

Why shouldn't non-religious people be pissed off by this?

ETA: And to cross-post from the other thread, DC, you yourself said this:

even the nicest, most non ranty liberal church will still tell you homosexuality is a sin. They might do it politely over a cup of tea, but it amounts to the same thing in the end doesn't it? You aren't right, here let me pray the gayness out of you. They are well hung up on that point.

There's really good reason to be pissed off by, if not outright angry about, this.

 

[DotCommunist]

oh I see I thought some tarring with a big brush was going on. I've long disagreed with faith schools despite being the beneficiary of an education from one.

 

[Reno]

I just like the stuff about "Is there really a you?" and the Buddhist interpretation of death, short of karma and reincarnation, that we live on in other things.

We live on in the memories of those who remember us and when we rot, we provide soil for plants to grow and that's quite enough for me as far as living on in other things goes. Humanism, atheism, science and socialism covers all the bases for me.

 

[DotCommunist]

I agree completely with this. I think you've slightly misunderstood, DC. It's not a case of writing people off, it's a case of being exasperated by, and objecting to, the intrusion of organised religions into everyday life.

Why shouldn't non-religious people be pissed off by this?

ETA: And to cross-post from the other thread, DC, you yourself said this:



There's really good reason to be pissed off by, if not outright angry about, this.

of course it pisses me off- its all the worst because they're not cartoon villains. I know them, they're generous kind and then...homosexuality and original sin. fuck no. They're just wrong

 

[littlebabyjesus]

of course it pisses me off- its all the worst because they're not cartoon villains. They're just wrong

Exactly.

I think we're agreeing furiously here.

 

[DotCommunist]

We live on in the memories of those who remember us and when we rot, we provide soil for plants to grow and that's quite enough for me as far as living on in other things goes. Humanism, atheism, science and socialism covers all the bases for me.

also our art is important here. Generations to come will revere me as I revere Keats and Shelley. Possibly.

 

[Reno]

also our art is important here. Generations to come will revere me as I revere Keats and Shelley. Possibly.

That falls within "we live on in the memory of those who remember us".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Three things about Dawkins:

1) His politics are appalling, and he really should stay off social media. Twitter is very good at showing people up as ignorant when they haven't properly thought things through, and he just comes across as an ignorant twat on tweets.

2) A lot of what he says is directed at the US, where organised religion's influence on public policy is greater than it is here. There is a real battle that needs winning in the US, and it takes some courage to fight that battle.

3) Despite 2), things such as Dawkins' and Dennett's idea of 'brights' are awful ideas and really counterproductive, which Dawkins would understand were it not for 1).

 

[Coffee]

What about the members/leaders of organized religion that claim without faith in god or the threat of eternal damnation there would be nothing to stop us committing the most wicked crimes?
Most skeptics/atheists that I've encountered lead pretty ordinary law abiding life's.
Makes me wonder if they're worried about their own behaviour if They ever strayed from the path of the righteous.
Some of them are bad enough whilst they maintain their beliefs. (Assuming they believe them to start with)

 

[BandWagon]

It's a good question what clerics, priests, imans, whatever, do when they lose their faith? Let's say you're 40, spent all your life preaching that stuff, no other job skills, no money much, living in a house provided by the organisation, and then you wake up one day and realise it's all bull****. Do you come clean, apologise to all those who you've misled and walk away from it into penury? Or do you keep spouting stuff that you know not to be true?

 

[Coffee]

It's a good question what clerics, priests, imans, whatever, do when they lose their faith? Let's say you're 40, spent all your life preaching that stuff, no other job skills, no money much, living in a house provided by the organisation, and then you wake up one day and realise it's all bull****. Do you come clean, apologise to all those who you've misled and walk away from it into penury? Or do you keep spouting stuff that you know not to be true?

Probably told that a crisis of faith is to be expected from time to time,
And hopefully they will remain within their religion.

Can't be a good advertisement for a religion if the shepherds leave their flocks to often.

 

[CNT36]

Buddhism certainly seems comparatively benign,

It must be a pretty low benchmark.

 

[Gromit]

Three things about Dawkins:

1) His politics are appalling, and he really should stay off social media. Twitter is very good at showing people up as ignorant when they haven't properly thought things through, and he just comes across as an ignorant twat on tweets.

I'm genuingly curious to know if he is the male Katie Hopkins.
Made a load of money upsetting religous folks. When that attention dwindled did he feel the need to troll whoever he could to keep himself in the limelight and the money.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm genuingly curious to know if he is the male Katie Hopkins.
Made a load of money upsetting religous folks. When that attention dwindled did he feel the need to troll whoever he could to keep himself in the limelight and the money.

No he's not. He's a 70-something academic who has made more than enough money over the years out of his pop-science books.

Nothing like.

 

[Gromit]

No he's not. He's a 70-something academic who has made more than enough money over the years out of his pop-science books.

Nothing like.

Just the limelight then.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just the limelight then.

Nope. I don't think he's trolling, nor do I think he particularly seeks the limelight, funnily enough. Or at least, he doesn't seek the limelight for its own sake.

I think you have him dead wrong. He is not some wannabe 'celebrity'. Whatever you think of him, those are most certainly not his motives.

 

[brogdale]

I don't consider religious people stupid, I do however feel they have been manipulated by a system though.

Not stupid, no. But those that voluntarily submit themselves to an organised religion do appear to be bringing upon themselves another (un-necessary) system of authority and control; bemusing.
Ni dieu ni maître!

 

[BandWagon]

Not stupid, no. But those that voluntarily submit themselves to an organised religion do appear to be bringing upon themselves another (un-necessary) system of authority and control; bemusing.
Ni dieu ni maître!

Certainly, if they sign up as an adult, but if they've had a strong religious upbringing it's very difficult to throw it off, even assuming they want to.

 

[gentlegreen]

It's a good question what clerics, priests, imans, whatever, do when they lose their faith? Let's say you're 40, spent all your life preaching that stuff, no other job skills, no money much, living in a house provided by the organisation, and then you wake up one day and realise it's all bull****. Do you come clean, apologise to all those who you've misled and walk away from it into penury? Or do you keep spouting stuff that you know not to be true?

http://clergyproject.org/

 

[brogdale]

Certainly, if they sign up as an adult, but if they've had a strong religious upbringing it's very difficult to throw it off, even assuming they want to.

Yep, that's why I used the term voluntarily. Though of course, many have proved that it is possible to throw off the yoke of a parent-imposed religion.