Attitude to Religion and its believers.

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.

DaedalousIlios ,
@DaedalousIlios@pawb.social avatar

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.

fluffery , (edited )
@fluffery@lemmy.ml avatar

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 people I 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

menas ,

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

AdNecrias ,

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.

menas ,

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)

Honytawk ,

If you need unproven statements to prove something, then it isn't science.

AdNecrias ,

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.

AdNecrias , (edited )

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.

Katrisia ,

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.

n3m37h ,

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.

Mubelotix ,
@Mubelotix@jlai.lu avatar

Congratulations, this is the vision philosophers shared during the Lumières

n3m37h ,

Ramen

ssm ,
@ssm@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

I am agnostic, and if a god exists, I hate them.

lud ,

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.

inconspicuouscolon ,
@inconspicuouscolon@lemy.lol avatar

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

jerkface ,
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

vintageballs ,

At what age does one stop being an "edgy kid" in your eyes?

jerkface , (edited )
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

beetlejuice0001 , (edited )

Serious question, do you still believe in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus?

Edit: these examples are heavily promoted as Christian

jerkface ,
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

"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.

beetlejuice0001 ,

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 children gun rights

jerkface ,
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

Is 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.

beetlejuice0001 ,

Shove your religion up your ass

jerkface ,
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

beetlejuice0001 ,

Shit in one hand and pray in the other stupid motherfucker

jerkface ,
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

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. They are different things. Figure your shit out.

Seleni ,

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.

TheGalacticVoid ,

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.

beetlejuice0001 ,

Could you name them for me? Not beliefs, just religions

TheGalacticVoid ,

Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism are some, but Asia has many more religions/ideologies.

beetlejuice0001 , (edited )

Not beliefs, just religions

All of these are philosophy not monotheism

TheGalacticVoid ,

All the examples I provided are religions.

beetlejuice0001 ,

Philosophy is not religion, your answer speaks volumes

TheGalacticVoid ,

Your ignorance is genuinely louder. All of those are religions, and any credible source you find will agree with me.

beetlejuice0001 , (edited )

Tell me, who is god/deity in Buddhism?
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism
Oh look no deity
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sikhism
No deity there either
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
Also No deity

Coming next, But those aren’t real sources

Philosophy versus Religion

Now I’m done wasting time on you.

TheGalacticVoid ,

"...scholars consider Buddhism one of the major world religions."

"Sikhism, [a] religion and philosophy..."

"Hinduism (/ˈhɪnduˌɪzəm/)[1][2] is an Indian religion or dharma..."

Your own sources say that all 3 are religions.

beetlejuice0001 ,

They say they are philosophies, answer the question. Who is their deity ? A spiritual god? Or a physical person?

denshirenji ,
@denshirenji@lemmy.world avatar

Sikhism is a staunchly monotheistic religion.

beetlejuice0001 , (edited )

(Wiki says otherwise, though they do conflate religion with philosophy)[Sikhism (/ˈsɪkɪzəm/ SIK-iz-əm), also known as Sikhi (Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖੀ Sikkhī, [ˈsɪk.kʰiː] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/8/84/Sikkhi.ogg/Sikkhi.ogg.mp3https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sikkhi.ogg, from Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ, romanized: Sikh, lit. 'disciple'), is a monotheistic Indian religion and philosophy]

denshirenji ,
@denshirenji@lemmy.world avatar

Bruh... That quoted text says that it is a monotheistic religion. Please just learn the thing and don't die on the hill. They have a holy book (the guru granth sahib ji), together with a wider collection of religious and philosophical works (the bani). They have rituals and the like. Things like the 5 Ks. They believe in a singular deity (Ik Onkar) who is, according to Sikhism, the same deity that the Muslims call Allah. Onkar is the Punjabi symbol for Aum (A very important Hindu concept). The gurus (their leaders), are supposed to be god. The idea is that they are a reflection of God, likening God to the ocean and the gurus to a bucket that is filled by the ocean. Their holy book is the last and final guru and simultaneously god and leader/teacher.

Point of the above is I know what I am talking about. All of those are definitely religions with a belief in deities and afterlifes and holy books and miracles, etc...

magnetosphere ,
@magnetosphere@fedia.io avatar

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.

Sgt_choke_n_stroke ,

I hate the belief not the believer

inconspicuouscolon ,
@inconspicuouscolon@lemy.lol avatar

preach (pun intended)

tiredofsametab ,

Keep it to yourself and don't hurt others. So long as that's the case, what someone else believes is generally not my business.

I was raised in various evangelical protestant denominations of Christianity, went through a Neopagan period, and landed in atheist-leaning agnostic.

Brickardo ,

Don't ask don't tell

Shou ,

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.

jerkface ,
@jerkface@lemmy.ca avatar

You are born with spiritual needs. It is clear that you still have unmet spiritual needs despite your religious trauma.

vintageballs ,

[x] doubt

Don't project your needs onto others.

Shou ,

My spiritual need was liberation from this projective bullshit.

Aceticon ,

Don't say, don't ask.

HarriPotero ,
@HarriPotero@lemmy.world avatar

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • asklemmy@lemmy.ml
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •