I don't think you can respect something when you believe it's not true. Like, you can say, "I respect your position to believe", but you still are part of a group thaf believes they are 100% wrong. Show them respect, sure, but it looks like pity.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Organized Religion: At Best an inefficient charity organization. At worst an anti-progressive cult.
- Thread starter Exellus
- Start date
- Status
It's very easy to respect folks that don't agree with you. It's not hard.
Complete athiest but having known many bereaved and lonely people that religion has helped I disagree it lacks any reasonable merit.
I can and do all the time. I respect their beliefs and don't begrudge them theirs. It's okay if I don't believe as they do and vice versa. I respect them as living breathing beings. No matter what they believe.
Though, I've never thought of pity as an inherently negative thing.
There's a lot of religions that don't obey this, and are directly involved in taking away liberty from others.
I don't mind religion or religious minded individuals. As long as they are logical and consistent, but.
What I mind is when some use religion to justify the oppression of others.
This isn't disagreeing with the quality of a movie but a central belief someone holds. Let say I am Christian and you are a buddhist. I can say I respect your beliefs but truthfully I am in a position where I jave to believe you are 100% wrong about your core belief because I am right. It's hard to believe there is true respect there.
Do you live in the US? Cause the religious peeps in this country overwhelmingly vote republican and republicans do nothing but try to fuck the country.
I get were you are coming from, but when organized religion is used as a political force, like it is in the US, it's not a live let live issue anymore.
Which is pretty much all of them, at the top? Right?
Also OP, don't forget tax haven. It's exploitation using the gullible as shields for their 'good name'.
I hate that I was indoctrinated and brainwashed for 18 years. There will be a part of me that always resents my parents for it.
A lot of people probably are emotionally stunted a bit by realizing everyone close to them was misrepresenting the truth, and what is known, in order to manipulate children. If you're not bitter about it, good for you. I am, and always will be. There is nothing redeeming about religion. There is nothing redeeming about indoctrinating kids into being your fucking warriors. Raising money for you (the church) to oppress others. To relocate rapists.
Last edited:
I understand that. But I think we are more than that. We are living beings and I respect life. If a Christian thinks I'm wrong and going to Hell, that's okay. The respect doesn't have to be mutual. I don't believe I'm 100% right and there's absolutely no way that a Christian is correct. I just follow the path that seems correct to me and will lead me to help others to the best of my abilities. It's helped me to be a better person and not just for myself. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I have to answer to a god for that, so be it.
The OP is proof enough that being an atheist doesn't magically turn you into more of an intelligent person or more of a critical thinker either. All I often see in these cases is a replacement of a wide set of accepted beliefs by another. It's often telling when some atheists end up using some of the same type of arguments, figures of speech and attitudes as the most zealous religious preachers.
Religion comes in so many different shapes and forms that such a broad statement with no strong empirical evidence to back it is really worthless to discuss.
Maybe if you can limit the scope of your argument, you might be able to get something constructive out of this thread. Else, all you really managed to do is hurt the feelings of a bunch of users you don't even know for no real gain. Pointless & hurtful.
Religion comes in so many different shapes and forms that such a broad statement with no strong empirical evidence to back it is really worthless to discuss.
Maybe if you can limit the scope of your argument, you might be able to get something constructive out of this thread. Else, all you really managed to do is hurt the feelings of a bunch of users you don't even know for no real gain. Pointless & hurtful.
If you walk around in life thinking you are 100% right on anything important and everyone that disagrees with you is 100% wrong, then maybe you should adopt some humility and look at cures for your hubris.
Respecting people is much more important than lording your 100% correct convictions over them.
Back when the whole Youtube New Atheism was kicking off I was super into The Atheist Experience, Aron Ra, and Thunderf00t (Before he lost his mind and started making nonstop Anita Sarkeesian videos every day). While I still agree with the sentiment that religion has nothing substantial to say about the nature of the world, and agree with the idea that anything good religion does can be done independent of religion, I just don't care enough to get passionate about that stuff anymore.
This doesn't work because galaxy brain is actually a healthy and good viewpoint to have
Religion was always a social tool first and foremost. Each major religion was introduced for its own reason, and popularized for a different reason.
Hinduism: Serves as a cultural achievement for ancient Indian kingdoms (especially the Kuru Kingdom around in Vedic times). Hinduism took elements from ancient Aryan (Indo-European) religions and codified them in writing, a way of proving the Indian kingdoms' mettle as culturally superior. It grew with elements like dharma and the caste system to be a tool for social stability to reinforce the idea of social hierarchy beyond mere mortal law.
Judaism: An identity for the ancient Hebrew tribes so that they would remain a people apart. A lot of the 10 Commandments and Levitical precepts were designed to insure social stability within the nation as well as to preserve unique Hebrew identity (a lot of the bans on different foods were because other surrounding nations ate those foods, or bans on incest because of the popular belief that the Egyptian royals practiced it). Arguably quite successful given that an ethnic group tracing heritage from the Hebrews is still here while most of their contemporaries are long gone, absorbed by the Arabs or Turks.
Taoism/Confucianism: Both introduced around the same time and both as answers to the problems of Zhou Dynasty era China, namely the infighting between different branch dynasties. Taoism introduced the focus on harmony and the Mandate of Heaven to try to quell the ambition of warlords and stop rebellion. Confucianism also focused on building a system of loyalty such that social rules would survive even when legal-political structures would break down and change.
Buddhism: A reaction to the more materialistic aspects of Hinduism. Buddha famously being inspired by the great poverty he witnessed around him and seeking an escape from drudgery, which the very cyclical and deterministic Hinduism seemed to encourage. Popularized ironically because it appealed to the wealthy and materialistic and the common man alike, and so was taken by the wealthy all around Asia but also rooted in the common people. Buddhism was popular because it was something you could practice rather than early religions which was just something that *was*, a goal to strive for rather than an immutable fact. In that sense it helped promote social stability because people could choose spirituality over, say, revolt.
Christianity: Originally a reaction to the legalistic nature of Judaism as shown in the Bible (particularly the Pharisees as written in the gospel). The nature of Judaism's purpose being a social glue, it did nothing to bring meaning to people's lives and the more moral parts of the Torah were de-emphasized in favor of the more legal ones. Worship of God wasn't about being good or just, it was just about doing or not doing certain things. Christianity filled a need in Jewish society to feel a connection with God. It was popularized because it was a good antidote to Greco-Roman religion and society which was very social-darwinist and autocratic. Christianity was hope for people oppressed socially or politically, but was eventually adopted by the upper classes because it was so popular further down and again served as a social tool to try to rally the Christian people to the Roman Empire in the late Roman days.
Islam: A tool to bring peace to the fractured and feuding tribes and city-states of Arabia. It applied the discipline and unity of Judaism and universalized it by removing the ethnocentric part of it and helped unite a fractured people to build a mighty civilization and empire based on a strong but fairly simple code of rules. Islam's interesting because it was the only one where faith and state were one in the same for quite some time, so it was popularized by law.
Shinto: This was part of the attempts of early Japan (around the era of Prince Shotoku and the time of Japanese unification) to legitimize themselves. The Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki were both written in roughly these time, and these were chronicles detailing the Japanese creation myth in a bid to prove that Japanese civilization was one that could stand proudly alongside China. As such, they ritualized native Japanese beliefs and turned a kind of animistic early religion into something that was codified and rule-based, similar to Taoism (so again, an attempt to imitate, although they also adopted Taoism and Confucianism and Buddhism and happily mingled them all. Japanese religion is weird).
So religion's purpose was not evil in its beginning, at least not any more than civilized society was evil. Some religions were born for temporal purposes, some for spiritual purposes, some basically just as cultural dick-wagging. As the religions institutionalized they became a part of the political fabric, and so could be used to help or to hurt over the years.
The correct question to ask about religion is that it's a tool that meets a need, whether good or bad, and the question to ask yourself when looking at a specific believer or a specific moment in religion is what need is this trying to meet, and can that need be fulfilled in a better way that doesn't have the bad side-effects that can come from a religion's baggage? If you look at Radical Islam, for instance, that's trying to meet a few needs in the Muslim World: rebellion for disaffected young men or politically disenfranchised rural tribes, a social tool against egregiously corrupt and materialistic ruling class, or a strike against Western cultural encroachment. It's a nexus of religion and politics to horrible effect, but understanding why can help address the issue and recommend cures like antipoverty initiatives, drives for political transparency and accountability, or less aggressive and exploitative foreign policies in Europe and North America.
Religion can complement political dogma, or be replaced by it. Doctrines like Bolshevism or Nazism or liberal Humanism try to replace religion in their own way by meeting a need, just de-mystifying the process. Religion should be viewed as a part of that spectrum.
Hinduism: Serves as a cultural achievement for ancient Indian kingdoms (especially the Kuru Kingdom around in Vedic times). Hinduism took elements from ancient Aryan (Indo-European) religions and codified them in writing, a way of proving the Indian kingdoms' mettle as culturally superior. It grew with elements like dharma and the caste system to be a tool for social stability to reinforce the idea of social hierarchy beyond mere mortal law.
Judaism: An identity for the ancient Hebrew tribes so that they would remain a people apart. A lot of the 10 Commandments and Levitical precepts were designed to insure social stability within the nation as well as to preserve unique Hebrew identity (a lot of the bans on different foods were because other surrounding nations ate those foods, or bans on incest because of the popular belief that the Egyptian royals practiced it). Arguably quite successful given that an ethnic group tracing heritage from the Hebrews is still here while most of their contemporaries are long gone, absorbed by the Arabs or Turks.
Taoism/Confucianism: Both introduced around the same time and both as answers to the problems of Zhou Dynasty era China, namely the infighting between different branch dynasties. Taoism introduced the focus on harmony and the Mandate of Heaven to try to quell the ambition of warlords and stop rebellion. Confucianism also focused on building a system of loyalty such that social rules would survive even when legal-political structures would break down and change.
Buddhism: A reaction to the more materialistic aspects of Hinduism. Buddha famously being inspired by the great poverty he witnessed around him and seeking an escape from drudgery, which the very cyclical and deterministic Hinduism seemed to encourage. Popularized ironically because it appealed to the wealthy and materialistic and the common man alike, and so was taken by the wealthy all around Asia but also rooted in the common people. Buddhism was popular because it was something you could practice rather than early religions which was just something that *was*, a goal to strive for rather than an immutable fact. In that sense it helped promote social stability because people could choose spirituality over, say, revolt.
Christianity: Originally a reaction to the legalistic nature of Judaism as shown in the Bible (particularly the Pharisees as written in the gospel). The nature of Judaism's purpose being a social glue, it did nothing to bring meaning to people's lives and the more moral parts of the Torah were de-emphasized in favor of the more legal ones. Worship of God wasn't about being good or just, it was just about doing or not doing certain things. Christianity filled a need in Jewish society to feel a connection with God. It was popularized because it was a good antidote to Greco-Roman religion and society which was very social-darwinist and autocratic. Christianity was hope for people oppressed socially or politically, but was eventually adopted by the upper classes because it was so popular further down and again served as a social tool to try to rally the Christian people to the Roman Empire in the late Roman days.
Islam: A tool to bring peace to the fractured and feuding tribes and city-states of Arabia. It applied the discipline and unity of Judaism and universalized it by removing the ethnocentric part of it and helped unite a fractured people to build a mighty civilization and empire based on a strong but fairly simple code of rules. Islam's interesting because it was the only one where faith and state were one in the same for quite some time, so it was popularized by law.
Shinto: This was part of the attempts of early Japan (around the era of Prince Shotoku and the time of Japanese unification) to legitimize themselves. The Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki were both written in roughly these time, and these were chronicles detailing the Japanese creation myth in a bid to prove that Japanese civilization was one that could stand proudly alongside China. As such, they ritualized native Japanese beliefs and turned a kind of animistic early religion into something that was codified and rule-based, similar to Taoism (so again, an attempt to imitate, although they also adopted Taoism and Confucianism and Buddhism and happily mingled them all. Japanese religion is weird).
So religion's purpose was not evil in its beginning, at least not any more than civilized society was evil. Some religions were born for temporal purposes, some for spiritual purposes, some basically just as cultural dick-wagging. As the religions institutionalized they became a part of the political fabric, and so could be used to help or to hurt over the years.
The correct question to ask about religion is that it's a tool that meets a need, whether good or bad, and the question to ask yourself when looking at a specific believer or a specific moment in religion is what need is this trying to meet, and can that need be fulfilled in a better way that doesn't have the bad side-effects that can come from a religion's baggage? If you look at Radical Islam, for instance, that's trying to meet a few needs in the Muslim World: rebellion for disaffected young men or politically disenfranchised rural tribes, a social tool against egregiously corrupt and materialistic ruling class, or a strike against Western cultural encroachment. It's a nexus of religion and politics to horrible effect, but understanding why can help address the issue and recommend cures like antipoverty initiatives, drives for political transparency and accountability, or less aggressive and exploitative foreign policies in Europe and North America.
Religion can complement political dogma, or be replaced by it. Doctrines like Bolshevism or Nazism or liberal Humanism try to replace religion in their own way by meeting a need, just de-mystifying the process. Religion should be viewed as a part of that spectrum.
Between this and the vegan thread everything just goes hand in hand
Just do what you need to do to get you through the day, man
Just do what you need to do to get you through the day, man
How is a man made institution that gives direction and meaning not ripe for actually being the source of all evil, especially in the context of oppressing the marginalized. Like, in what world is trying to control people (especially kids) through lies and indoctrination NOT evil.
The last bit makes no sense. Take the parables/lessons/fables, remove the science fiction/indoctrination, there's your metaphorical sense.
Looks like a meme Jordan Peterson came up with.
I'm atheist. many religious people I know don't go to church, don't donate to church, have children who are atheist , are progressive, are disgusted by the sexual exploitation and cover up and usually just use faith and prayer as away to empower themselves and have hope. I am not a fan of most religious organizations but I am on great terms with plenty of religious people as long as they don't use religion to judge or control other people. When people start up with that "If you are religious I can't respect you" nonsense it sounds immature as fuck and shows a misunderstanding about many people of faith. I guess you can go on thinking every single person that believes in God is an oppressive, pedophile supporting bigot though.
I'm most definitely not going to get involved in a religious debate on ERA for a number of reasons.
The most important reason though, is only God can soften and open up someone's heart to receive Christ. No amount of Internet debate will change someone's opinion. When you experience God working in your life though, it is truly amazing.
The most important reason though, is only God can soften and open up someone's heart to receive Christ. No amount of Internet debate will change someone's opinion. When you experience God working in your life though, it is truly amazing.
This right here. I don't care if someone believes in a higher power or doesn't. So long as the aren't assholes about it who cares? The new atheist movement is the literal worst, and I say that as an atheist.
The argument can be made that religious people tend to vote more conservatively. So what? The country is becoming less religious by the day and if we really wanna keep that going we have to be less condescending and mean spirited towards people of faith.
I feel like most people hit that 'DAE religion sucks' period in their mid-late teens but by the time you reach your twenties you realise outwardly projecting your hatred for religion constantly and making anti-religion a part (or all of) your identity makes you look like a moody neckbeard.
There's nothing you can do about it.
There's nothing you can do about it.
Oh so your saying that I'm a dumbass for believing in a religion. Thanks OP.
I want everyone to live their lives with religion or without. Stop judging people for their faith or no faith people, it's not that hard for fucks sake.
I want everyone to live their lives with religion or without. Stop judging people for their faith or no faith people, it's not that hard for fucks sake.
Last edited:
I used to feel this way too, and still do- but when 89% of Americans believe in God as polled- you learn to be quiet about it lol
Eat at the same dinner table but pass on whatever deity observance service they suggest for the following day.
Important to remember.
Yup. I don't believe in God but I refuse to call myself an atheist because I don't want to be lumped in with people like the OP. Who really gives a shit? Believe in whatever you want. That's what I always say. I'm not willing to debate anyone about their beliefs.
- Status