Attitude to Religion and its believers.

zxqwas , 6 days ago

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.

EleventhHour , 10 days ago

Those who believe in an invisible sky wizard (or any other delusion) belong in psychotherapy.

stoy , 10 days ago

As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.

There is zero evidence either way, the best we can say is that we don't know.

electric_nan , 10 days ago

Literally anything that anyone can ever imagine, is not all equally probable.

EleventhHour , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

I believe in that which we can prove, because we have evidence of those things.

Not invisible sky wizards. Lol

hemko , 10 days ago

Yeah man something about Russell's tea pot

We have no evidence for gods, that's it. There's no need to provide evidence for absence of god, the burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim (that there's a god/gods).

CableMonster , 10 days ago

The problem with this theory is that we dont have a complete explanation for existence without the existence of a higher power.

hemko , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Yep, but we have tool for trying to understand it. It's called scientific method, and it has so far been able to help us understand the mechanics of the universe without resorting to crazy claims such as "yeah must have been super powered aliens", which is the only offer from religion.

I do get that there's a chance that it's all bogus, and that there really is or was a god that created everything in a way we have been able to measure it, but why exactly should I believe it? Which story should I believe? 'In this world of a million religions everyone prays the same way', the same human made stories written over centuries trying to explain the world around us. In this context religion seems nothing more than a predecessor to scientific method turned into crowd control tool.

CableMonster , 10 days ago

My main point is any philosophy about where humans came from is a matter of faith. I was just pointing out the issue where evolution doesnt sufficiently explain things, but most atheists are aware of this or just handwave away the problem.

I suppose on picking a religion you would need to look at what makes the most logical sense, and is most consistent. Also I would look at what has the best track record with the best outcome.

hglman , 10 days ago

Yeah that religion is called science. To suggest that gaps exist on evolution so we need to go examine religion is an a joke of an argument. The difference in successful capturing of the reality of the process of life by the theory of evolution to any religion is galactic in scale. Your justification is ridiculous and only exists because you cannot let go of the lies someone taught you as a child in order to control you.

CableMonster , 9 days ago

The joke is that you think you follow science and then outright discount things when they are not what you want.

hglman , 7 days ago

I mean we can talk about how god is a non sense idea.

CableMonster , 7 days ago

So with what certainty do you think there is no God?

hglman , 7 days ago

Around the same certainly that I think balloons exist inside giraffes on the moon of TRAPPIST-1b.

CableMonster , 7 days ago

So this points out how you dont care about science because you are completely close minded. What you will find is that with your group this is common, they will not even begin to admit the possibility of a deity.

hglman , 6 days ago

I gave you my assessment of my the possibility, more over the subject has been significantly more explored than the evidence for it. Doing good science is not endlessly chasing any possible outcome, it is rigorously evaluating those you can investigate.

That said,

There is no god and your a fool, feel fucking bad for you. I'm really sorry people manipulated you as a child to the point your trapped by the idea. Haunted even.

CableMonster , 6 days ago

and your a fool

hemko , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Evolution theory DOES explain where we came from, and the theory is proven billion times over and over. It's insanity to believe anything else. As Dawkins neatly put it, we have more evidence for evolution theory than we have for Holocaust.

but most atheists are aware of this or just handwave away the problem.

No, 'atheists' do not handwave problems found in scientific theories away but study it until it's no longer a problem. What religion does is just says "it must be gods" and throws any reason to thrash bin

CableMonster , 9 days ago

The issue is you guys do handwaving about how the basic building blocks started and then go on to look at fossil progression. You guys need to stop and look at how it seems to be impossible for DNA to develop and how evolution doesnt have a good explaination for it.

hemko , 9 days ago

No one is handwaving away problems we are yet to solve, except the people just claiming "must have been gods"

There has always been and probably always will be new problems to solve. Scientists have been working on trying to understand and resolve those problems, and we know so much more today than we did 100 years ago. We take evolution theory as a fact, because it's the theory that has been proven billions of times again and again, and we keep finding more proof for it. Just because we might not know everything yet, is not an argument against the only working theory we have.

Your Christ illusion has been proven zero times

CableMonster , 9 days ago

You can say its not handwaving, but as evolution currently stands it is an impossible theory. Until there is an actual explanation you can say its been "proven billions of times".

hemko , 9 days ago

Until there is an actual explanation you can say its been "proven billions of times"

All the evidence we have supports evolution theory

CableMonster , 9 days ago

Except for the very start of it, and unless you can answer that question it voids all of evolution.

ianovic69 , 10 days ago

about where humans came from is a matter of faith.

If that's your main point then you're in a great position to examine your beliefs using tried and tested methods to know things.

Of course, you may have to adjust those beliefs to be in accordance with reality, which can be much more difficult. Should you accept this challenge that life has presented, your chosen subject of evolution has mountains of good evidence to study.

what makes the most logical sense, and is most consistent.....what has the best track record with the best outcome.

This is interesting use of language that usually applies to the scientific method. I've often seen it used in attempts to legitimise religious reasoning, and sometimes it goes with assertions of "proper basic beliefs."

You should be aware that these are just more modern methods of things like Pascal's Wager, that are not meant to convince anyone except those who already believe.

All religion, at least those with god belief and certainly the Abrahamic three, contain no sensible logic, are completely inconsistent, have a terrible track record and very often horrible outcomes.

CableMonster , 9 days ago

How do the the Abrahamic three all have a terrible track record?

ianovic69 , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

Just to be clear, ignoring everything else I said doesn't somehow make them irrelevant. In fact it does the opposite to any further opposition you may bring later.

Also, it's kinda rude.

As to your question, the track record of those three religions to convincingly explain anything they claim to, is complete and utter failure. Every time.

If they can offer any good evidence as answers to the subjects discussed in this post, I've yet to hear them. I'm open to being convinced and I try to adjust my beliefs accordingly when presented with good evidence contrary to my current knowledge.

But there's been nothing so far.

CableMonster , 9 days ago

I didnt ignore what you said, its just pointless to write super long responses to all the subjects, it just gets to be a wall of text.

Let me be more direct, what is the horrible outcomes that christianity or judism brings?

ianovic69 , 8 days ago

Super long wall of text? You're kidding, right? ಠಿ⁠_⁠ಠ

Look, I even put it in it's own, separate paragraph

As to your question, the track record of those three religions to convincingly explain anything they claim to, is complete and utter failure. Every time.

So, to avoid any confusion before moving on, you didn't even try to explain your reasoning for the criteria you set out. You didn't offer any good evidence to justify those criteria, and you dodged replying by pretending it's too difficult for you.

This isn't a good look for you or those who share your beliefs.

And you're really asking me to point out terrible things that have come about as a result of religion or been perpetuated through religious belief?

Off the top of my head -

Holy wars.
Witch trials.
Destruction of indigenous cultures.
Widespread misogyny.
Discrimination towards minorities.

CableMonster , 8 days ago

So this was exactly the way I thought you would go so I didnt want to invest a lot of time. Those things you mentioned are not related to christianity, it christians doing things. If you actually understand the bible I would say 4/5 go directly against the bible and the last one is questionable.

The main issue is that people apply the things that a person of a belief system does to that belief system. For example they will see a Rep or Dem commit a crime and say that the particular party is responsible, or for in your case christianity is responsible for what its people do.

"But the people are the fruits of what the religion is!" No, they typically are a failing of following the tenants.

ianovic69 , 8 days ago

Nonsense. We are talking about things people do as a direct result of their beliefs, also known as outcomes. Bait and switching just makes you look even worse.

And accusing nearly all Christians of not doing it right is disingenuous, elitist and pitifully sad.

Perhaps instead of disgracing yourself further, you can tell us what these tenets are that so many go against?

CableMonster , 8 days ago

“But the people are the fruits of what the religion is!” No, they typically are a failing of following the tenants.

If you dont understand what I am saying then just ask, insulting is just childish.

ianovic69 , 8 days ago

I didn't insult you, I pointed out your poor behaviour.

And I did ask you, about several different things, the most recent being about the tenets you claim to follow.

Why don't you try again?

CableMonster , 8 days ago

No, you are not related to me and I dont care if you try to scold me. I did nothing wrong or shameful and I dont need to explain anything to you. If you get offended by internet conversations then dont have them. If you dont understand what I am saying feel free to ask questions but I am not answering to you.

ianovic69 , 8 days ago

I'm not offended and I'm not scolding you.

You need to realise that I'm merely highlighting your poor behaviour for others to see.

Why so defensive? If you can't justify your position then just say so, but pretending otherwise is just childish.

CableMonster , 8 days ago

You keep gaslighting me and I dont really care. My behavior was normal and you just seem to be over reacting about something. Just like you claiming I am being defensive, I am jsut telling your I am not going to explain myself to you, and I dont care if you are wanting to scold me, you dont have any power over me.

ianovic69 , 7 days ago

Gaslighting? That suggests I'm inventing things just to make you look bad.
Unsurprisingly, that's not true. Here's you lying and generally being awful -

Those things you mentioned are not related to christianity, it christians doing things.

Not what I said. I'll repeat -

We are talking about things people do as a direct result of their beliefs, also known as outcomes.

That's about as related to Christianity as you can get, which means you misrepresented what I said. Also known as lying.

I would say 4/5 go directly against the bible and the last one is questionable.

Accusing people of doing it wrong is not a good way to make your point. It either discredits your own religion, or it belittles the beliefs of your fellow Christians while elevating your own.
Not a good look.

If you dont understand what I am saying then just ask, insulting is just childish.

Again, I did ask. More than once. Here's an example -

Perhaps instead of disgracing yourself further, you can tell us what these tenets are that so many go against?

So again, accusing me of being childish to cover up that you're lying.
Lovely.

No, you are not related to me and I dont care if you try to scold me. I did nothing wrong or shameful and I dont need to explain anything to you.

If you're going to behave like a child and pretend you didn't when called out on it, that doesn't mean you didn't or that I'm wrong.
But it does make you a liar. Again.

If you get offended by internet conversations then dont have them.

Heh, you're funny.

If you dont understand what I am saying

If anything you said was new or original, I would have asked about that. Not that you would answer me anyway.
But its all tired repetition of the same old guff we've heard a million times.

Oh well.

CableMonster , 7 days ago

Yeah sorry, I am not going to read all that wall of text. Have a great day!

ianovic69 , 7 days ago

Poor thing, running away like they always do.

ianovic69 , 10 days ago

Why is that a problem?

Isn't it a much bigger problem to invent an explanation and insist it's correct, rather than just admitting we don't know?

CableMonster , 10 days ago

The problem is that DNA and associated parts are too complex to evolve, so there is no explaination how it would have gotten to that point. You can say that religion doesnt do a good job explaining, but the various religions have one even though its kind of cheating. Evolution seems impossible without another unknown factor which makes it another faith based system.

juliebean , 10 days ago

isn't a 'higher power' just kicking the can down the road?

CableMonster , 10 days ago

It could be, I guess it would all depend on the theory of what a higher power is. If its God, then thats the endpoint, if its aliens or simulation theory, then it definitely is a kick.

juliebean , 10 days ago

i am not sure what's the difference there. why is one an endpoint, and the others aren't?

CableMonster , 9 days ago

God would be an endpoint in that its the full explaination, where as if aliens put the basic building blocks of life on earth then the question is where did the aliens come from.

hglman , 10 days ago

Unknowns just exists, religion assigns the unknown form. Why is that justified and even more incredible important to those who believe that it be true and to make choices due to the assignment of that form?

hemko , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Because science tries to understand the unknown using reason, religion throws the reason away and says it was gods.

GreyEyedGhost , 9 days ago

I get what you're saying, but saying people who choose to believe something that can't be proven and hasn't been disproven need psychotherapy is like saying the same for color preferences. Sometimes there is no right answer and people should be able to choose.

hemko , 9 days ago

Opinions are opinions. Opinions don't change the fact that earth is orbiting the sun or that religions are a hoax

GreyEyedGhost , 9 days ago

First, religions and the existence of God are two different things, just like the existence of the earth and the earth being flat are two different things. Likewise, the existence of religions is no guarantor of God's existence, nor is there many flaws proof of his non-existence. And unknowns are facts we haven't discovered or proven yet, much like germ theory, or fanciful ideas which haven't been debunked, such as the idea that an imbalance of humors was the cause of disease.

aleph , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.

This position is a straw man. Atheists generally do not argue that God categorically does not exist. Instead, we usually say that we don't believe in God because there is insufficient evidence. Much like the proverbial invisible unicorn in your backyard - since there is no evidence that it exists, there is no reason for it to affect how we go about our daily lives.

When it comes to whether you're agnostic or atheist, I think it helps to answer the following question on a scale of 0 - 10: How confident are you that God exists? If you say around 5, then you're agnostic. If you say around 1 or 2, then you're an atheist.

stoy , 10 days ago

The one thing that still remains unclear with regards to science and god is the big bang.

The way I have heard it explained is that before the big bang there was nothing.

Which to my mind becomes:

First there was nothing, which exploded

This does not make sense to me, how can nothing explode?

So there are three categories of answer to this question:

A. There was something before the big bang which exploded, though this offeres not explanation of how the thing that exploded came into existance, I have heard theories about how the universe is cyclical and how it will eventually collapse into a new big bang, but that doesn't answer the queation about the first big bang.

B. God exists and triggered the big bang, that means that the god entity exists outside of our universe.

C. We are just a highly advanced simulator, the big bang was the the program starting our simulation.

aleph , 10 days ago

There is no rule that says the universe must make sense to human beings. In fact the more we learn about it - subatomic particles, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, etc. the stranger it becomes and the less it appears to operate in ways that are intuitive to our primitive primate brains.

Hell, even space and time might not be fundamental properties, and could themselves be abstractions which emerge from an even deeper underlying reality...

All of which is to say your list should have an extra option:

D. Who The Fuck Knows?

stoy , 10 days ago

That's fair.

I was about to add that option, but forgot about it.

I guess what makes me annoyed about it is that we know that the big bang happened, but we don't know what triggered it or what was before.

hemko , 10 days ago

The way I have heard it explained is that before the big bang there was nothing.

It's more like what happened before big bang has no consequences to what happened after. Because this, we have little idea what happened before because there's no direct evidence.

stoy , 10 days ago

That is a new way of putting it that I have not heard before, I like it, it doesn't answer my questions as much as defecting them. It forces me to realize thsybit doesn't matter.

fluffery , 8 days ago

It's ok, I'll pray for you /j

I have a spiritual need and that's liberation from this discrimitory bullshit /srs

DaedalousIlios , 8 days ago

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.

fubo , 10 days ago

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.)

Glide , 10 days ago

I like this. You're good people.

SnotFlickerman , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

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.

fubo , 10 days ago

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.

SnotFlickerman , 10 days ago

Agreed.

jerkface , 9 days ago

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.)

Krono , 10 days ago

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.

fubo , 10 days ago

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.

Krono , 10 days ago

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.

GreyEyedGhost , 9 days ago

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.

inconspicuouscolon , 9 days ago

Yepperoni, thanks for putting this so succinctly.

Seleni , 9 days ago

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

fubo , 8 days ago

Maoism did a lot of evil without any religion. Were all of its perpetrators bad people?

Krono , 9 days ago

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.

GreyEyedGhost , 9 days ago

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.

shapesandstuff , 10 days ago

I don't mind them doing their thing at home, but I could do without them shoving their lifestyle in everybody's face in public.

GreyEyedGhost , 9 days ago

I don't tell non-straight people they can't have their pride parade, I don't tell people they shouldn't kiss or hold hands in public, I don't tell religious people they can't have public displays, either. What I object to is if any of those groups insist I join them, or insist I don't.

shapesandstuff , 8 days ago

I hope my sarcasm was clear

fluffery , 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

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

n3m37h , 9 days ago

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 , 8 days ago

Congratulations, this is the vision philosophers shared during the Lumières

n3m37h , 8 days ago

Ramen

jerkface , 9 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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

jerkface , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

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 , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

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

Edit: these examples are heavily promoted as Christian

jerkface , 8 days ago

"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 , 9 days ago

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 , 8 days ago

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 , 8 days ago

Shove your religion up your ass

jerkface , 8 days ago

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 , 8 days ago

Shit in one hand and pray in the other stupid motherfucker

jerkface , 8 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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

TheGalacticVoid , 9 days ago

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

beetlejuice0001 , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

Not beliefs, just religions

All of these are philosophy not monotheism

TheGalacticVoid , 9 days ago

All the examples I provided are religions.

beetlejuice0001 , 9 days ago

Philosophy is not religion, your answer speaks volumes

TheGalacticVoid , 9 days ago

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

beetlejuice0001 , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

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 , 9 days ago

"...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 , 9 days ago

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

denshirenji , 9 days ago

Sikhism is a staunchly monotheistic religion.

beetlejuice0001 , 9 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

(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 , 9 days ago

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...

menas , 9 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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 , 8 days ago

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

AdNecrias , 8 days ago

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 , 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

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 , 8 days ago

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.

mo_lave , 10 days ago

I don't care unless they force me to believe the way they do.

CableMonster , 10 days ago

What would you say to a person that wont use preferred pronouns of a trans person?

shapesandstuff , 10 days ago

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.

CableMonster , 10 days ago

So then what would you say to a person that wont use preferred pronouns of a trans person?

Aurenkin , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

I'd say if you can at all help it please be less of a cunt

explore_broaden , 10 days ago

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.’

mo_lave , 10 days ago

Proselytizing: You can say no without repercussions.
"Forcing Their Beliefs:" You have to follow the religion or you will face legal/societal consequences.

shapesandstuff , 9 days ago

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.

mo_lave , 10 days ago

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.

CableMonster , 10 days ago

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?

mo_lave , 10 days ago

No.

CableMonster , 9 days ago

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.

inconspicuouscolon , 9 days ago

What would you say to a person who refuses to acknowledge or take into consideration the belief of a religious individual?

CableMonster , 9 days ago

I wouldnt say anything. Modern christians in america are much much more accepting than those of the "woke" philosophy.

Mubelotix , 8 days ago

It's very different. Misgendering is illegal where I live, but you can't be forced to care about someone else's dumb beliefs

gravitas_deficiency , 9 days ago

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.

crazyminner , 10 days ago

I am Anti-theist, If anyone brings up religion around me I will not hesitate to tear it down.
These people are playing make belief and if affects my life, I have to live in a world where people make decisions based on some imaginary sky friend.

I will not play nice for the sake of someone feeling good about their bullshit.

Cagi , 10 days ago

So you're an asshole, using religion as an excuse to berate and bully people, got it.

crazyminner , 10 days ago

I actually care a lot about people. I don't care much for ideas though.

How's it go? Love the person hate the imaginary "friends"?

One thing that's nice about being visibly queer is that luckily people don't try to con me into their religions.

crazyminner , 9 days ago

Flat-earther comes up to you and tells you the earth is flat.
What do you do tell them to each there own? Or do you tell them no the earth is not flat and they should educate themselves?

Cagi , 9 days ago

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you don't need to be an asshole to disagree. You don't need to "tear down" beliefs and "not play nice". Being rude to people for being wrong just makes them dig deeper into being wrong out of defensiveness. It isn't about edification, it's about finding an excuse to be mean.

That said, other people's education is not my responsibility. Taking the time and energy required to correct a random stranger about what shape the earth is isn't going to change the world but it will take a toll on me. Being wrong doesn't make them a bad person. Being a jerk to them for believing so does. Believing in a flat earth a symptom of fundamentally flawed reasoning skills that I don't have the time or energy to deal with. If someone believes the earth is flat, I'll politely disagree and state my opinion, but ultimately I'll let them do them. Who cares. I choose my friends, they won't make the cut.

red_pigeon , 9 days ago

Unfortunately, "these people" have to live in a world where you exist too and your conflicting attitude affect their lives.

Learn to live and let live, my friend. You cannot expect the world to accept you if you are not ready to accept them.

crazyminner , 9 days ago

I accept people, I will never accept irrational/harmful beliefs. Luckily it looks like access to the internet's vast wealth of knowledge is killing religion in the next generations.

ssm , 9 days ago

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

lud , 9 days ago

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 , 9 days ago

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

Sgt_choke_n_stroke , 9 days ago

I hate the belief not the believer

inconspicuouscolon , 9 days ago

preach (pun intended)