What is your general attitude towards those who believe in religion whether they are jewish, Muslim, Christian etc etc.
Do you get on well with any religious friends and neighbours?
Have you ever thought of believing in a religion at some point?
If you do not like the faiths, why?
If you DO, also why? Does this come from your family? Maybe something went bad during your life?
I get that Lemmy might have the same stereotype in Reddit that there are loads of atheists, but there’s a good reason why despite criticism of religion, it is still here.
P.S. I am not religious or anti religious in any fashion, I am agnostic.
Attitude: I generally don’t care unless they try to tell me what to do based on their religion. This is generally never a problem, I’ve had more vegans and environmentalists bother me.
Getting along: we have some high faith denomination of Christianity here. I’ve worked with a few and generally don’t notice unless they drop something heavy on their foot and don’t swear.
Thought of believing: not since I was 12 or something.
Do not like faiths: I acknowledge they can create a sense of community and belonging. I have a dim view of the dogma that tends to come with them.
I am agnostic, and if a god exists, I hate them.
I consider myself an anti-theist. Religion is used to control unintelligent/mentally challenged people and shouldn’t exist in any form.
I don’t hate the people unless they are forcing it down my throat.
Congratulations, this is the vision philosophers shared during the Lumières
Ramen
I’m a Pluralistic individual. I believe everyone has a reason to believe. But I think the way someone believes is very telling about that person’s personal values.
Ergo, I don’t care what a person’s religious beliefs are, I care what that person’s values are. I believe that is a much more honest approach that doesn’t needlessly alienate anyone or stoke petty, tribalistic behavior.
I don’t really care if they believe in something.
I would never try to convince them to stop or anything like that.
I think the type of people that frequent Reddit and Lemmy and constantly complain and mock religious people are the worst.
I don’t hold belief against people so long as they act appropriately toward others.
I have some positive and negative opinions toward particular religions based on their foundations and practices.
I kinda long for a sense of spiritual community, but I can’t make myself have faith in something I don’t believe, no matter how nice it seems. So that kinda sucks
I’m greek orthodox, my family, is greek, and the religion comes with it
I get along with all amd you should too, religious or non-religious shouldn’t be a question, a party is a party. Get messed up and regret it in the morning
The only one’s I don’t really like is protestants but thats because
of my racism against british peopleI think quite a few of the protestant demoninations strangle the meaning of what it means to be a christian.Although surprisingly, I’ve known anti/atheistic people who gave me meat on several occasions during fasting (where we go basically go vegan) even though i reminded them about it before they even started cooking. We also have some of them in the board with us aswell, the “the religious belong in psychotherapy” types.
One of the biggest mistakes faith has done is try and influence things outside of the church espically in modern day schenanigans like politics. The church should be the peaceful escape from the outside world, not the opposite
From how I see it, my religion is beautiful, provides me an undescribable sense of peace, and I know the people who are at my parish are people i can depend on if i ever need help
How do you know that science is not a believe like the other ? My answer is in challenge it with other believe systems to explain reality. Of course some things make a lot more sense with science methodology, but to be faire, te main point of religions is not to explain gravity.
I consider other believes as opportunities, no to explain to others, or to be taught by others, but making both and strengthen us all.
However, we shall to care do not confuse religions and believes. A lot of people took part in religions and do not believes, and others believes and do not took part in a dedicated community. This is a different topic. Communities are generally a good thing, but hierarchy lead to abuses. This true in every organization, religions include
Not sure if I’m taking the bait but here goes.
Science is a set of processes where you take belief out of the equation. You can start with something akin, which when you have informed belief you have an hypothesis which you set out to prove. You don’t hold that as truth and anything not falsifiable is not a valid hypothesis.
Science is not a religion, it’s just a thing. Plenty of people need to belief to function and end up having (even a blind) faith in science, using it as a religion.
On your second point I’m with you on the last part though I think you are calling religions and believes things that are organized religion and religion.
In any demonstration, you have to make some unproven statement, taken as true. It could be “1+1 = 2” or “God exists”. So sciences are methodologies based on believes. Lot of religions use logic and reasons, based on science and philosophy, to deduce things from their core believes. This is theology.
So if both science and religions are based on believes, and could have the same methods, how to distinguish one of the other ? We could argue that science try to reduce believes as possible. Personally I’m not good enough in sciences to argue with religious people, and demonstrate that point. In trying to challenge my believes in scientific models, I have to stay tolerant with religious people (I’m not sure I would otherwise); which is a most productive approach. Furthermore, it helps to have a critical point on view on science (as you’ve said, and to taking it as a blind faith)
If you need unproven statements to prove something, then it isn’t science.
You do have start somewhere. Complex numbers have an impossible assumption at its core. But it needs to be falsifiable. You need to be able to prove it isn’t true and fail at it.
God exists and God is all powerful are a blanket check to solve everything, because it just does whatever you want it to and you don’t even try to prove it. 1+1 = 2 is a semantic axiom, not really equivalent to wilder assumptions you can do where those wouldn’t be comparable to there’s an all powerful something in existent in our reality that affects it at will.
It’s like believing there’s a multiverse, it’s not a useful axiom as it’s not measurable and specially not falsifiable.
It’s useful to keep an open mind and not discard people based on irrational beliefs, but God is something you can only accept in the scientific method if you bend or break the method.
Imo, That’s not even looking at the fact that any type of religious organization ends up being someone taking advantage of the faithful. It irks me to no end, and it’s rare to find faithful in a vacuum.
Contemporary philosophy and sciences are different from religion in some aspects. One important aspect is that these academic fields rely on rational arguments, while religion today mostly relies on traditional beliefs and faith.
Let’s say a philosopher is pondering the idea that direct experience is not necessary for knowledge. The only way to go and declare this publicly is to elaborate why, how, in a rational and rigorous manner. Most scientists work with objects that admit replicated experimentation, so they must do that, let’s say in their case, to demonstrate that a rain frog only comes out with heavy rain, but not with light rain. In contrast to these two, a religious or spiritual person might give “arguments”, but this argumentation is never to see if their belief resists examination, it is only to convince others of this belief that has been established as truth before everything else. In other words, philosophy and sciences examine their thesis (hypothesis, theory, etc.) and never assume they have the ultimate truth; on the contrary, they keep searching and exploring possibilities. Talking here about the disciplines and not the individuals who can be different from this from time to time (e.g., a dogmatic professor). Meanwhile, religion and spirituality do not have thesis or any beliefs that are susceptible to drastic change. They establish core beliefs or dogmas, and only later might try to prove them or not, depending if they find this exercise important.
Are they all ultimately unprovable statements? I guess so, but we should care how these statements come to be and how we justify them. To me, it makes an enormous difference.
I rather believe in climate change in which human action is definitely affecting the Earth (source: sciences) and the importance of stopping it as we seem to have a responsibility to others and to ourselves (source: ethics, a branch of philosophy), than to believe that there is a conspiracy to make us believe about climate change (source: perhaps imagination) and that we shouldn’t do anything anyway because there is no reason to (source: ignorance or dogmatism, honestly).I try to remain critical of rational disciplines too, but that’s ironically done with more rationality. And here I do not mean “cold” and rigid pseudo logical analysis, but something that admits different approaches as long as they are solidly justified.
I guess it comes down to who we are. I simply cannot be convinced without this I explained. I cannot believe in religion or spiritual beliefs. I sometimes get short videos about people telling many different stories, about ghosts, ayahuasca trips where they talked to superior entities, gods and the way they know they’re real, etc. How can I believe what they perceive is real? Mere “leap of faith”? And why choose one over the other? Just because I like a particular system or because it benefits me in some way? Sorry, too arbitrary even for me that I sometimes act impulsively and capriciously. As I said, I guess the way we are allows us to accept or to deny different ways to approach existence. This is me.
Thank you for reading my stupidly long comment.
I hate the ignorance that edgy kids have about religion, having exposure only to a very very very narrow sample and extrapolating to infinity. Not every religious practice opposes truth, or oppresses and exploits its practitioners. No more than every political practice does. Religious practice is an expression of our innate humanity. You cannot just get rid of it, any more than you can get rid of any fundamental human need. What is important is finding safe, healthy, ethical and helpful means of expressing it.
My uncle is a pastor. So when his kid came out as trans, he and his wife did the ‘good moral Christian’ thing and shamed her and harassed her until she committed suicide.
Then deadnamed her at the funeral, and wrote and published a book about how ‘his betrayal’ and ‘his unfortunate death’ were just tests from God to test their faith.
This is not a rare or unique story; many people all over the world have stories like this. Is it any wonder those who pay attention find religion distasteful? It may be a part of humanity, but many unpleasant things are, and there is nothing ‘edgy’ about rejecting them.
Yes, there are ‘good’ churches in my town that feed and clothe the poor; a far cry from my uncle’s church. But they are part of the same religion, and the fact that religion accepts both, morals be damned, means I have no interest in it.
Their point is that there’s more than 1 widely-practiced religion, and there are plenty of sects that are tolerant to different forms of self-expression. Saying food is bad because you don’t like bananas isn’t sound logic, and applying that same logic to religion doesn’t work either.
I can’t speak for any Christians, but many of the religious people I know are some of the most tolerant people I know because their religious schools focused on doing things with good intent.
Could you name them for me? Not beliefs, just religions
Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism are some, but Asia has many more religions/ideologies.
Not beliefs, just religions
All of these are philosophy not monotheism
All the examples I provided are religions.
Philosophy is not religion, your answer speaks volumes
Sikhism is a staunchly monotheistic religion.
(Wiki says otherwise, though they do conflate religion with philosophy)[Sikhism (/ˈsɪkɪzəm/ SIK-iz-əm), also known as Sikhi (Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖੀ Sikkhī, [ˈsɪk.kʰiː] ⓘ, from Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ, romanized: Sikh, lit. ‘disciple’), is a monotheistic Indian religion and philosophy]
At what age does one stop being an “edgy kid” in your eyes?
50% grow out of it by mid thirties.
The Internet atheism movement of the late 90s was extremely liberating and enlightening to many people. But, it has gradually become hateful and I think it has long since run out its useful lifetime. We can’t just stop there, we need to collectively develop a more informed, nuanced and compassionate view. Today’s threat isn’t baptist fundamentalism, it’s fucking fascism. You can’t hate yourself out of that, you only sink deeper.
We can’t just stop there, we need to collectively develop a more informed, nuanced and compassionate view
Like supporting
trans, gay or poc rights or free food for childrengun rightsIs it your poorly stated, smug, so-ironic-no-one-knows-what-you-are-talking-about point that all religions promote oppression based on sexuality and gender, of the poor, and of children? Because that sounds an awful lot like American conservatism, not religion. But since you won’t come right out and state your points clearly in a way that can be directly refuted, how about you just fuck off.
Removed by mod
You are being hateful towards religion. That is very different than rationally opposing religious oppression and persecution, which obviously is a thing that does exist and needs to be opposed, but which does not define religion. You can’t make things better with hate. Figure your shit out.
Removed by mod
WHAT religion? I was one of those edgy young mid 90s atheists.
Look, I’m sorry. I can see that you have trauma. But please don’t take it out on other people.
Serious question, do you still believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus?
Edit: these examples are heavily promoted as Christian
“Serious question,” asks ridiculous question. You don’t need me here for the rest of this conversation, say what you are going to say. As long as you are not about to extrapolate from some abusive sect of Christianity that you are familiar with to the entire concept of religion generally. You know, like I just said.
As long as they’re not an intolerant dick about believing or not believing, whatever they go with is fine. It’s none of my business.
Imagine if that person did all the same things they do, but without the label of “religion” being attached.
Charity? Awesome! Habitat for Humanity is an explicitly Christian organization and does great work. In my neighborhood, the local Lutheran and Quaker churches give out free food to the poor, and they don’t sneak any Lutheran or Quaker cooties into it. If you’re good to others because you think God wants you to be good to others, that still really does count as being good to others.
Prayer? Okay, take “religion” off of it and they’re meditating, thinking, or talking to themselves. That’s good. Unless they’re thinking and talking about torturing their neighbors eternally, or something creepy like that. (But even then, better to keep those fantasies to yourself than to act them out in public.) Die Gedanken sind frei — thoughts are free.
Going to worship services? Okay, they’ve got a weekly social event where they sing songs and listen to speeches. Sounds great, unless the songs are about “everyone outside this room is a terrible person and deserves to suffer forever” and the speeches are about hate politics. If they’re about how wonderful it is to be nice to each other, or being brave and standing up against oppression, or something else that would be positive even without the label of “religion” on it, great!
Dietary rules? It’s okay to have preferences, distinct cultures, cuisines, and so forth. For that matter: my family isn’t Jewish, but when I was little, we ate kosher beef hot dogs, because my mom expected the rabbis would care about the meat being sanitary. (Unfortunately in retrospect, kosher slaughter is, shall we say, not clearly better than secular slaughter.)
What you said is all true, but you are ignoring the negative aspects of religion.
Religious influence, both on their followers and on government, is anti-science, misogynistic, and anti-LGBT.
Religions are funded like pyramid schemes, with the most desperate and vulnerable as their victims.
Religious indoctrination is child abuse.
Anti-science, misogyny, etc. are bad independently of whether they are done in the name of religion, or pseudoscience, or political ideology. Doing bad things in the name of religion is exactly as bad as doing them in the name of communism, or capitalism, or racial ideology, etc.
Anti-science, misogyny, etc may be bad independently of religion, but they aren’t independent of religion. Religion is a source of these problems.
You can imagine a hypothetical religion that is simply a “social club” or whatever, but here in the real world religion comes with baggage.
Religion is why my cousin’s children have never seen a doctor in their life. Religion is why my gay friend in high school tried to kill himself. Religious indoctrination has led to lifelong shame and trauma in many of my friends.
And this was just from a “moderate” sect of Christianity- the millions living under fundamentalist religion have it even worse.
Every terrible thing done under religion has been done without religion. None of them have happened without people (except for killing the different). Maybe people are the problem and religion is just one of many tools that can be used to harm other people. Tribalism exists in many forms, religion in its many flavors being just one of them.
Saying “maybe people are the problem” is reductive and unhelpful. But I agree with you broadly, religion is just a system or a tool, it can be used for good or evil.
To judge if religion is a good system or a bad one, we can use a cost benefit analysis. This is what we have been attempting to do in this thread.
But when it comes to sensitive subjects like religion, many people have a tendency to avoid, overlook, and deny the associated costs.
Saying “religion is the problem” when the problem crops up in many different areas regardless of which religions are present in an area or if religion isn’t present at all makes it seem like you might be focusing on the wrong thing. Nationalism, religion, strong ideologies, groups with deep emotional bonds and a sense of insularity are all susceptible to the same things - charismatic leaders can easily direct their attention and they have a tendency towards directing their hostility towards groups that don’t fit into their group.
So, tribalism. And if one tool won’t work, or is removed completely from access, those who wish to use tribalism to mobilize a large group to help them achieve their goals will just use the next one that is available to them. The tools are rarely what are important to them, but the results. So I don’t see how focusing on one tool, even a particularly well-suited tool, will solve the problem.
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg
Maoism did a lot of evil without any religion. Were all of its perpetrators bad people?
Yepperoni, thanks for putting this so succinctly.
I like this interpretation but last I checked the vegans aren’t going to vote for a despot who will kill all non-vegans, and that they don’t view the death of all non-vegans as a positive thing. (Most vegans I know are keenly aware they can only participate in veganism because of modern agricultural, distribution, and economic systems. They know veganism is an elitist choice that a lot of the world cannot make.)
I think that’s the major difference here.
Wow, you sure did manage to slip in a bunch of self-serving misinformation about veganism for no fucking reason. Who are you actually trying to convince, I wonder. (I’m being sarcastic, I know perfectly well.)
Sure. Voting for religious genocide is just as bad as voting for non-religious genocide: e.g. on the basis of nationalism, pseudoscience, or the like.
Agreed.
I like this. You’re good people.
deleted by creator
I treat religion like my penis.
It’s ok not to have one.
It’s ok to have one.
It’s ok to be proud of it.
But don’t display it in public, and don’t shove it down people’s throats.
And NEVER whip it out in congress.
You aren’t born religious. You are indoctrinated. I grew up in a cult. It wasn’t nearly as bad as cults get, but it has its own insane
ramblings“teachings”I escaped my indoctrination because I took it too seriously. I wanted to adhere perfectly, which resulted in finding out how convoluted and hypocritical it is. It is impossible.
So in my confusion, I started to look more critically at the hows and whys. The result, religions all use the same dirty tactics to get people to believe. False promises, comforting lies and empty threats that will seem real to those who were taught magical thinking.
I reject religion.
But I cannot hate people who are religious for just being religious. They were a child when taught, or an adult so downtrodden they needed a fairy tale to continue life. Or perhaps just are a bit naive. It’s a slippery slope. So… I can’t blame people. I get it. I know what it’s like and it saddens me the older people get, the less likely they’ll ever escape the mental constriction religion brings.
I sure as fuck hate a religious person for commiting hate crimes. They can go to hell.
You are born with spiritual needs. It is clear that you still have unmet spiritual needs despite your religious trauma.
My spiritual need was liberation from this projective bullshit.
[x] doubt
Don’t project your needs onto others.
Raised Catholic, and I definitely see organized religion through that lens. I see charismatic leaders manipulating followers. I see systems to keep people, especially women and children, subservient. I see followers giving up responsibility for their own actions and beliefs. Even if a religion doesn’t start out that way, the way they organize makes them susceptible to the power-hungry who will corrupt it.
Am I extremely sceptical of organized religion? Yes, doubly so of people who seek positions of authority within organized religion.
Do I recognize some people who follow an organized religion are good and well-intentioned? Yes.
Do I call bullshit on the people who think the only way to be a good person is by following an organized religion? Heck, yes.
I don’t care unless they force me to believe the way they do.
What would you say to a person that wont use preferred pronouns of a trans person?
I’d tell that person they’re being intolerant and offensive, and to fuck off.
And I’ll tell you that that is an unrelated question to the topic, and that you are being offensive by injecting that question in such a manner. You can pick your religion. You cannot pick whether or not you have gender dysphoria.
What would you say to a person who refuses to acknowledge or take into consideration the belief of a religious individual?
It’s very different. Misgendering is illegal where I live, but you can’t be forced to care about someone else’s dumb beliefs
I wouldnt say anything. Modern christians in america are much much more accepting than those of the “woke” philosophy.
If you’re trying to make an analogy here, that’s incredibly short sighted.
Forcing religious values down other ppls throats is trying to dictate their life.
“forcing” aka asking to be referred to with certain pronouns is asking to have your own life respected.
One is about having your beliefs respected, the other is demanding others to act as if they were part of your faith no matter if they believe or care.
Some religions believe that they should proselytize as many people as possible, so really not letting them convert you is disrespectful to their beliefs.
I agree that there’s a difference, but I’m not sure a simple argument like this really works since it is difficult to say one belief is ‘better.’
Not really the same thing at all though is it?
Also bit of a weird constructed example. A faith like that can only lead to it’s followers taking offense or religious totalitarianism.
Which is not something I’d engage with so idk why i would tolerate something so intolerant.
The comparison is also kinda failing since one is a belief and the other isn’t.
A more fitting comparison would be ostracising someone for their faith vs insisting to misgender someone despite better knowledge.
Proselytizing: You can say no without repercussions.
“Forcing Their Beliefs:” You have to follow the religion or you will face legal/societal consequences.
So then what would you say to a person that wont use preferred pronouns of a trans person?
I’d say if you can at all help it please be less of a cunt
It’s not analogous nor related to the topic, but since you asked, this scenario requires a lot of assumptions.
Is said person intentionally misgendering? I’ll make it quick. “Please respect [trans person]'s preferences.” It’s not my business to force them to comply or not.
Taking a WAG at the number, I would say that 90% of people in your belief group would use soft power against someone that wouldnt go along with using their new pronouns. This includes things like banning them from social media, kicking them off youtube, debanking them, ect. Do you think that using influence like this is approapraite to get people to not offend the trans people?
No.
Okay then it sounds like you are like what normal christians are. The problem is that most of the people in your group will start yelling and use their soft force to get people to comply, which most christians dont do. So in the end your group is the one that is trying to use force to get people to follow their ideology.
