?>


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER
Reply to a reply in a different subforum
Posted: Posted December 31st, 2019
Edited January 1st by chiarizio
View Source Report Thread Views

@Grey_Echelon:

Religion can be cool if it's adaptive and not dogmatic in the harmful or misinterpreted parts of it then it's kind of more on the person rather than the religion and really even with religions like christianity it's typically not practiced how it should be or the bible in some regards is running with previous harmful interpretations because they couldn't figure out what Paul meant by a word. You can even be religious and atheist at the same time. Point is the interpretation of the religion and the person practicing kind of matters more for how bad it is.


Slavery also was rarely as bad as the worst and most abusive cases. But the entire North still blames the entire South for all of it, even those of us Southrons whose ancestors opposed secession and opposed slavery.
By that logic every religion deserves to be judged by the worst excesses of their most virulent adherents.
And any adherent who doesn’t stand up and denounce the crimes of their co-religionists shares blame for those crimes.

See how I’m easier on religionists than Yankees are on Southrons? I cut slack for those who denounce their evil co-religionists.

Every nice believer I know would be equally nice without their religion. Those who truly believe would be notably less delusional without the belief.
Every not-nice believer/follower/adherent I know of, OTOH, fuels their justification of and motivation of their crimes, by means of their religion.
I do not know any non-nice non-believers. I have heard of their existence, but I haven’t met them.

Religions probably motivated some good things between, say, 700 CE and 1900 CE, and probably before, and maybe even into the 20th century.
But the main effect of religion — any and all religion, Catholic or Muslim or Mainstream Protestant or Woo-woo Protestant or any other — in the 21st century so far, has been to make people feel good about abusing (mostly killing) people, mostly people who don’t share the perpetrators’ religion, but also some who do.

In the 21st century so far each religion has been on balance evil.
This is not disproven by pointing out that the majority of the adherents do not commit evil nor use religion to justify evil. Their good deeds are featherweights compared to the misdeeds of their co-religionists.

———

I’m sorry, my reply to your post should go in the P&R forum.


#ReligionCanBeCool
There are 29 Replies
Load all posts On page: 1 2 3
  settingsSettings

@Grey_Echelon:
I have no intention of attacking you.

I want to, and try to, and sometimes at least partially succeed to, respect people who believe differently from me.

I feel no obligation, however, to respect their beliefs, and make no attempt to do so.

Instead I feel a moral duty to announce to anyone who hasn’t heard it, that all religion is delusional and evil, and attempting to spread religion is also evil, and comes close to wiping out the good done by feeding or housing or clothing or medically-treating any unfortunates, while trying to promote a religion.

———

If I knew for a fact that there were a god or an afterlife, I would still feel this way.


Posted December 31st, 2019 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

I'm not religion anymore so it's not an attack on me personally but for one thing not every religion is equally as bad as the other for another, one interpretation isn't necessarily more accurate than the other, therefore it just seems absurd to me to generalize religion on a whole. Especially when you say things like "all religion is delusional and evil" it honestly just seems a bit ignorant to religion especially when you're so generalizing. I could understand it better if you were talking about a specific religion or subset of a religion but definitely not the whole of religion. Even if you don't have beliefs in a god or whatever else, how is a way of life delusional? Because again you don't even need to believe in any of that to be religious, not that I think it's absurd to believe in gods and other things that are hard to prove, closer to the opposite really, I just haven't found a religion that suits what I have reason to believe in yet.

Comparing it to slavery on the whole also just seems a bit weird. I feel like it's more accurate to point to islamic extremists and how people now generalize muslims and that leads to all kinds of nonsense against muslims and even arabs because while it isn't racist per se, many people who have a strong dislike of islam, also do end up racist and assuming that arabs are typically like the worst elements of islam (which they also consider to be islam as a whole)

Anyway, the real problem is humans because they would act the way they do with or without religion in many cases, religion is just what they hide behind and thus it's hard to blame the religion especially in cases where the religion doesn't even condone or even outright condemns their actions.

Edited January 1st by Grey Echelon
View Source Quote Report

Like trust me I get it, I know how certain religious people can be annoying, but again it seems like it tends to be more something wrong with them already that drives them to abuse religion for their own issues rather than what the religion is quite likely about. You say "But the main effect of religion — any and all religion, Catholic or Muslim or Mainstream Protestant or Woo-woo Protestant or any other — in the 21st century so far, has been to make people feel good about abusing (mostly killing) people, mostly people who don’t share the perpetrators’ religion, but also some who do. " but explain how this applies to less popular religions? And see the problem here is that you're talking about POPULAR religions specifically. If you have enough people in it, then typically there will be people who are fucked up and do fucked up things, that's a given no matter what so why blame the religion? They'd just find something else to flock to and use for their own shittiness.

As such, I think with how wildly different religions are, and the fact that popular things will always attract shitty people who use it for their shitty purposes it really makes no sense from my perspective to blame religion as a whole.

Essentially, religion is just the scapegoat not the cause. Shitty people are. Just as some religious people see the devil to blame, so too can people blame religion in general for the actions of shitty people who would just find something else to flock to anyway, probably politics.

I do not know any non-nice non-believers

I definitely do. It really goes both ways, and I think your experience may be an outlier.


Every nice believer I know would be equally nice without their religion. Those who truly believe would be notably less delusional without the belief.

Here's the thing though: Belief doesn't necessarily mean surety or that you have to be sure. It just means you believe it. A lot of people don't seem to realize this, you can have many reasons to believe in something that can't necessarily be proven but still acknowledge that you can be wrong. It isn't necessarily harmful or delusional because there really is no way to no for sure unless it's disproven which it's often not, and if they have good reasons for believing it and still acknowledge they could be wrong I don't see how it's so bad. There really is nothing wrong with unproven beliefs inherently so long as it doesn't harm people or it continues to fly in the face of evidence.

Edited January 1st by Grey Echelon
View Source Quote Report

By “religion” I mean any tradition or system that encourages its adherents to believe things in the absence of supporting evidence and in spite of the presence of opposing evidence.

Those are all bad.

Especially any that include belief in a deity or an afterlife.

I mentioned only the ones I mentioned because of lack of space.

I include Taoism and Buddhism and Jainism and Paganism and Judaism and Hinduism and JurChen. And almost any other such system with more than four or five generations of adherents. Mormons and Salvation Army not excepted. Vodun and Santeria not excepted. Yazdik not excepted. Zoroastrianism included.

The fact that some are worse than others doesn’t contradict the fact that they’re all bad. Worst is bad; worse is bad; not-as-bad is still bad. Nothing in the past twenty years has happened in favor of the idea that “religion can be cool” in the 21st century, in my opinion.

I cannot keep silent and still respect myself when I look in the mirror to shave. I really think I have a moral duty to be as irritating as possible about this one single issue.

The closest to exceptions are Sikhism and Naziri Ismaili Sevener Shiites.

———

Even if a deity or some deities existed there is no evidence that they or it or she or he is good or benevolent or is deserving of worship or respect or obedience.

Edited January 1st by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

I accept “adopting some idea as a working hypothesis” as legitimate; the closest thing to mentally-healthy faith.
If a question has two possible answers, and one has no conclusive nor even persuasive evidence for either answer; but one answer allows one to work for a better outcome but the other answer implies one is screwed no matter what one does; then in my view it is both good strategy and mentally healthy to adopt the activist hypothesis as a working theory, even without sufficient evidence.

For my example, that is in my case, I choose to believe there is no god, because the opposite belief would be very bad for my physical health.
I’m sure you’re aware that walking around angry during most of your waking hours, especially if you’re too angry to sleep, puts a huge stress on your heart and stomach and immune system.
If I believed in a god I would be angry every waking moment, and some sleeping ones.
So I have a reason to believe there is no god. It’s a solid reason, but it isn’t proof; it isn’t even evidence.
In my view that’s a sane choice on my part.

Both of those choices to believe are similar to faith.
Like faith, they are taken in the absence of any preponderance of credible evidence.
Unlike faith, they are not certainty, and aren’t contradicted by credible evidence.

If your definition of faith doesn’t require certainty in the face of evidence to the contrary, then maybe those examples fit in your definition of faith.

I was defining religious faith as something that morally obligates someone to believe something in spite of evidence and logic.

Do you think a system of indoctrination that requires one to believe things in spite of evidence and logic can be good, that is the opposite of evil, in even the slightest degree? I don’t. At best it could be totally harmless. I don’t think it ever has been in the 21st century.

But if you have examples of committing oneself to behave as if a specific unproven hypothesis were true, when neither evidence nor logic disproved nor proved it, could be a good thing, I would agree I also know of such examples. I just wouldn’t call them religious faith. If you would, we should agree on an adjustment of terminology. If you want to call some of that “religious faith”, I’d hope you could come up with a distinguishing adjective, so I could set such examples aside from the ones I’ve called sick and delusional and evil.

I appreciate your trying to explain your views reasonably, and question mine reasonably.

I have no desire to just yell repetitive contradictions at you. (Unless you pay me for it, like that Monty Python sketch!)


Posted January 1st by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

@Grey_Echelon:
I said,
The closest to exceptions are Sikhism and Naziri Ismaili Sevener Shiites.


Sikhs have accepted martyrdom in support of the religious liberty of non-Sikhs.

Naziri Seveners believe they have a religious obligation to use the powers of reason and observation Allah has given them. If their evidence and their reason lead them to conclude something that seems to contradict their scripture or the sayings of their traditional or elder prophets, they conclude either those scriptures and prophets were wrong or misunderstood, not that their evidence and logic are wrong or misunderstood.

I’d be happy with a legislature and judiciary and executive branch totally filled up with Sikhs and Naziri Seveners.
Or even a university faculty filled by those two faith-groups, if that’s the right term.

Don’t think that’s available in North America, though.



Posted January 1st by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

Posts aren't replied to in order because I'm going at my own pace and doing it my own weird way so I hope this isn't confusing. Not particularly feeling up to typing a lot right now but I gave it a shot.

By “religion” I mean any tradition or system that encourages its adherents to believe things in the absence of supporting evidence and in spite of the presence of opposing evidence.

Especially any that include belief in a deity or an afterlife.

I see. Well I still disagree with that point of view even then because having an unproven belief still does not mean surety and it does not necessarily have to conflict with science or evidence otherwise. I suppose the line between a person being indoctrinated and a person taking responsibility for their own shortcomings and refusal to not be dogmatic is a bit difficult to work with but ultimately I feel like it's still more on the person after a while. A person who indoctrinates a child are of course at fault for doing it, but the child may have a harder time snapping out of it.

As for traditions and such, I don't think they necessarily have to conflict with science or evidence either, maybe change a bit but I don't seem tradition or systems as an inherent evil either.

The fact that some are worse than others doesn’t contradict the fact that they’re all bad.

That's the thing though, I personally see quite a bit as thoroughly harmless. They just aren't very popular or they are a specific subset of a more popular religion. I find gnosticism rather fascinating personally, and there are things you could take out of context or read too far into maybe, but I find it mostly harmless personally. The only fuck ups I see come from people and their own ideas or interpretation.

I include Taoism and Buddhism and Jainism and Paganism and Judaism and Hinduism and JurChen. And almost any other such system with more than four or five generations of adherents. Mormons and Salvation Army not excepted. Vodun and Santeria not excepted. Yazdik not excepted. Zoroastrianism included.

Well you've named some obscure religions, but may I ask how much do you know about these religions outside of a surface level understanding ? I mean I think there are religions that could be interpreted still as encouraging things like violence but even with like islam there are reasons to believe that for example in one area it was circumstantial, in one moment of a defensive battle and the translation and tone ended up fucking things up even more to make some people believe that it was more broad than it was and still applies in modern times when it doesn't seem to. I'm not saying all religions are entirely spotless at all but sometimes there are misunderstandings.

I think the above is a pretty good example of what I meant in a part of the post that prompted this thread that you didn't quote, There are quite a few lesser known religions, even ones containing deities and traditions that I find to be harmless and I'm sure you know there are far more religions than those but I'm not saying you have to go study every single one or any at all but they can be really really different. I'm actually impressed with the more obscure ones you named though.

If I believed in a god I would be angry every waking moment, and some sleeping ones.

This is something I understand as someone who believes a god might exist that might condone hell. I hate the very concept of hell which represents eternal condemnation and I don't think anyone necessarily deserves that, at the least why not put them somewhere more neutral after a while where they can do no harm? It's not that all concepts of god have the same sort of hell and some are temporary and some have no hell, but the concept of an eternal hell pisses me off. Not even the worst of people necessarily deserve that. The good thing is, I can be not sure of all of these details.

Even if a deity or some deities existed there is no evidence that they or it or she or he is good or benevolent or is deserving of worship or respect or obedience.

This is also mentality I can actually respect a lot albeit maybe for different reasons. Even if I believe something exists, I don't think it's necessarily worthy of worship. I actually sort of have this problem for something I believe might exist. But the thing is, I don't feel it's my place to tell them what they should and should not worship either because I could have been wrong ultimately somehow. Perhaps we just have different approaches to this.

I’d be happy with a legislature and judiciary and executive branch totally filled up with Sikhs and Naziri Seveners.

I think you agree but religion doesn't belong in government. The religious can be in government, but it should not determine their decision making.

Do you think a system of indoctrination that requires one to believe things in spite of evidence and logic can be good, that is the opposite of evil, in even the slightest degree? I don’t. At best it could be totally harmless. I don’t think it ever has been in the 21st century.

I'm not sure indoctrination is as widespread in religion as it seems but I'm not arguing that it's necessarily a good, but it's not evil either. And I don't think something necessarily needs to be taken away if it's neither but for some people it does seem to do some personal good in their life and that may be plus enough, they just need to not lose their heads. I do think systems of indoctrination are evil, the problem is indoctrination and more level-headed religious practice can end up lumped in together if the religion and those who practice it are generalized. Obviously parents shouldn't be indoctrinating their kids and stuff though.

I was defining religious faith as something that morally obligates someone to believe something in spite of evidence and logic.

Ya if you mean like it has to contradict no matter what then there could be a problem. But the thing is there are often ways around that, like even the religions that have forwarded young earth creationism, can still fall into theistic evolution at least in some interpretations. I suggest looking into it more if you haven't heard of it, it may at least broaden your scope of even theism a bit. Theism and religion aren't inherently the same thing of course but it sounds like you have an issue with theism too so. I think, what some don't understand is, you can believe theistic evolution is possible, you don't have to think it IS the way it is with certainty, and that's probably where Dawkin's "smuggle God in by the back door" comment came from. It's merely putting forth a possibility and it helps theists to accept evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
But if you have examples of committing oneself to behave as if a specific unproven hypothesis were true, when neither evidence nor logic disproved nor proved it, could be a good thing, I would agree I also know of such examples.

That might be what I mean but I'm talking about something one might have reasons to believe in but it can't be proven or disproven. With hypothesis though I think it depends on what sort of limited evidence is required for it to be a hypothesis.

I’d hope you could come up with a distinguishing adjective, so I could set such examples aside from the ones I’ve called sick and delusional and evil.

Personally I'd call just call it the dogmatic if you mean they're so sure of their convictions as for "evil" and "sick" idk. there are a lot of words for that. I don't know if that helps though.


Btw idk if you saw me saying it but you may know me as Knokkel or Knuckles. Also it's nice that there's actually a religion/paranormal/spirituality thread here. Seems like they've been almost dead since it merged with the politics forum.

Edited January 1st by Grey Echelon
View Source Quote Report

@Grey_Echeon:
A lot to read. I need to read it carefully. It all looks interesting. When I finally reply I’ll probably say a lot less.

I’m a missionary’s kid and a preacher’s grandkid. My father was a doctor and a teacher at medical school and nursing school. He was not a young-earth anything, but he was a theistic Darwinist.

I read the founding scriptures (in translation) of all the religions my parents expected to run into in India or Africa, including the Quran and the Guru Granth Sahib and the “Hindu Bible” (word of Manu — real title escapes me @tm); and Das Kapital (what a yawn!), and the Zend Avesta (a schizophrenics rants interspersed with a televangelist’s pleas for money), and some informative stuff about non-“people of the book” religions such as Vodun, and probably twice that many I’ve just lost track of. And I read the Book of Mormon (impresses one as a forgery), and the founding works of Mary Baker Eddy and the Seventh Day Adventists, and, being Methodists, not merely read, but studied, the Bible systematically to cover the whole thing completely every three years. (Oh! I think I forgot to mention reading the Tao in translation!)

I am repeatedly amused/moved-to-scorn by the condescending way American Christians assume I know less about the Bible than they do, when the reverse almost inevitably turns out to be the case. In fact, in any meeting between a Christian and an Atheist in America, the safe one to bet on knowing more about Christianity is the Atheist. The only safer bet is if the meeting is between a Jew and a Christian; in America Jews tend to be even better experts on Christianity than Atheists are.

I was a believer until age about 30, some years after my first divorce. But I was a live-and-let-live silent atheist until 9/11/01. Then after the destruction of the Twin Towers, and the virulent Fundamentalist Christian reaction to it, I realized that anyone’s religion is a danger to everyone, and I have a moral duty to reduce the influence of any and all religions on as many people as possible; and I became an outspokenly evangelistic atheist. Being “polite” about it is actually impolite; like quietly suggesting “this is just an idea, but maybe you don’t want to drive off that cliff?”, and upon being ignored saying “ok, sorry to bother you”. That actually shows not that I respect the driver, but rather that I can’t be arsed to put up with their irritation to save their life.

Even this relatively shortish reply of mine is not well-organized. Sorry about that!

Thanks for your reply. In the next few days I expect I’ll probably read it all more carefully.

Posted January 1st by eldin raigmore
View Source Quote Report

BTW of the ones I mentioned, the only one I know little about is Kim Il-Sung’s Jur’Chen Thought. But I bet it’s hogwash.


Posted January 1st by eldin raigmore
View Source Quote Report

Honesty deserves honesty.

I find it terribly funny that you (not just you personally, but Protestants and Evangelicals in general) would think that "knowing the Bible" is even meaningful in a discussion of religion in general or Christianity in particular. In my experience, people who hold dick measuring competitions based on their own reading of the Bible just don't get it. I'm actually thankful you're an Atheist, because that demonstrates to me a kind of deep honesty: at least you're no longer pretending to a virtue that you may have thought you once had!

The rationale is simple: being a Christian is not about the Bible at all. I know you come from a Protestant background. Protestants have been most excellent at grabbing the wrong end of the stick right back to Luther & Marcion. Protestants tend to think of the Bible as an instruction manual. That it contains the sum total of God's word. That it is the beginning, that there is nothing beyond and that it is the end. They're wrong because they make all that shit up. Luther was a mental case (depression almost certainly and perhaps bipolar disorder) and he turned his own dysfunction into a religion. What's crazy is that so many others followed suit! From "sola scriptura" to "sola fide" to "rapture" and "End Times predicions" to "become your own God" and "snake handling" and right up to all the other interpret-the-bible-yourself doctrines of the Protestants. It's just BS made up by the founders of each and every one of countless thousands of wee tiny denomination.

No. I don't care what you think you know about the Bible. I don't care whether or not you've read the Koran or Mary Baker Eddy or BoM. I don't care about Buddha or Confucius or Sahib's teachings. What I care about is what is in your heart. Are you LOVE? Not "oh I love pizza" or "I love my kids" kind of love, but fully self-sacrificing love, love that goes beyond every boundary made by humans. Love that overcomes not only the barriers thrown up by others, but also that overcomes your own walls and gates and locks. Are you love?

That is the foundation of Christianity, the focus of the Gospel and the call from Creator to created.

You are an evangelical Atheist. Sadly, you're tilting at windmills my friend. You're attacking what is senseless and meaningless in those you oppose. And your battle stance is itself without reason, without sense. What is even sadder is that while their shields and battlements are phantasms, your own weapon has no edge and declaration of war no true substance; you and they are the blind fighting the blind from within different rooms.



Posted January 2nd by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report
Next page Load rest of pages On page: /
Reply to: Reply to a reply in a different subforum
Enter your message here

Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
GTX0 © 2009-2020 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett