Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
wish people would stop doing this i_w makes some good threads that a lot of people take part in, if you don't like a thread don't post in it
I don't really invest in any religion, so to speak, but I see those approaches to the world as having value -- I disagree with people who dismiss mythology and those ways of thinking because they're not based in rationality, because there are some vital things that can't be expressed through just rationality (like the fact that the human mind, in many cases, tends towards the irrational and emotions and stuff, etc.).
Adding to that that religion, as a term, could be used to apply to how - in this supposedly enlightened age and society - follow the media or money or whatever.
can be used in exactly the same way as religion has been to exert control over people and communities is relevant, etc
I might've gone on too much
Probably because I was brought up with religion though.
nope, I was raised very religious, my parents are part of a tiny religion that believes all major religions are one, but it just never took with me. Nowadays I am very anti-religion to the point where it is not just about a lack of faith, even if it were true I would object to it because so many of their attitudes/beliefs/history seems immoral to me. I find it really difficult to reconcile my strong belief in tolerance, with tolerance of intolerant religion. Still haven't figured it out, don't want to be an awful internet atheist but I think I probably am.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world where every aspect of my morality was judged by a higher being.
I won't name names, but a couple of posters have talked pretty eloquently about their faith in the past.
or an ex-troll
not in a bad way, it's just you seem obsessed with the idea that I'm one, and I think it takes one to know one. I'll admit I did troll A LOT when I first joined and said some things which I'm embarrassed about now, but I thought that was the point. I didn't initially realise this was like a community.
just most people use their alt accounts (presumably on some sort of rota). other than that it's just curiosity.
but I would definitely say I'm a very spiritual person
religious people are idiots, obviously
partly cos it really doesn't matter, partly cos they don't have a fucking clue how to talk about it
mate, you're not an idiot. you must realise this whole thing of categorising atheists as one homogeneous lump (usually a characterisation of a beardy male (because women are too thick to see through religious idiocy), wearing a fedora, carrying around the god delusion etc) is absolute liberal nonsense. thousands are people are murdered daily by islamic fascists, people in even the supposedly civilised west are denied basic human rights by fundamentalist christians etc etc, and yet there's this shit thrown out constantly about "atheists". cretinry of the highest order tbqhwu
Aspect of his post, he makes a pretty valid point.
what that is doesn't matter and that people don't know how to talk about it? It does matter, and the second point wasn't explained enough to comment on.
it would be a blank post
"religious people are idiots, obviously"
How is it not important? It is one of the most influential factors in history and in society today. From extremes like stoning people to death or executing them for being gay in some countries to things closer to home like abortion being illegal in Ireland, or lobbying against gay rights in many western countries. Religion has influence and it's not just extremists that are problematic.
none of which i'm gonna be able to encapsulate in a dis post.
Its outdated by now obviously but Marx conceived of religion as part of the superstructure that maintains the economic base. I don't think it is a symptom purely of the mode of production (and obviously it's more complicated than that because a lot of places where islamic fundamentalism has most sympathy couldn't really be said to be capitalist at all). I'm not a historical materialist but I do think it's far more useful to think of it as part of some sort of superstructure of (intersectional) oppression rather than a base factor in itself. I don't even know how it could be considered to be a base factor.
Basically when people talk about religion the language and tools of social critique that conceptualise the complexity and intersectionality of power is very often lacking.
a perfect way to fully conceptualise and analyse power and the way it shapes phenomena within society. So really "a symptom of what" was an impossible question to answer
I think that is all very important to understanding how things form and develop, but I do also think once a religion forms it takes on it's own self perpetuating reality less bound to the factors that formed it. I think a religions content can be critiqued at face value because it is its content and ideas that have a direct influence, it is not just a conduit for underlying things.
i don't understand what you're saying here. you seem to be saying that we shouldn't critique religion because it is part of a complex of oppressional structures, but that doesn't follow?
set yourself up for a classic "that's never stopped you before!" there but i'm not in full queen fyds bitch mode at the moment but i guess people mostly talk in a shallow way about most things so i don't see why religion should be different
'i guess people mostly talk in a shallow way about most things so i don't see why religion should be different'
Should get that on a label sewn into your fedora
but i mean it's true innit. people have conversations to the past the time. i don't expect every sentence uttered by every person to be a well researched, coherent argument. just a weird criticism
really simple e.g. but supposing the shooters in france turn out to be second or third generation french (and whose ancestors lived in former french colonies), the discussion should be about class/race/etc and the intersections between. Islam (more specifically, fundamentalist islam) was probably only a conduit.
To have this discussion you have to remove the agents themselves from it and only talk in structural terms i.e. the violence of an oppressed race, class etc against the french bourgeoisie. Obviously their conscious rationalisation of their actions was borne out of Islam, but the violence itself is a product of something far more complicated than this and goes well beyond the tenets of a group of people who have interpreted a religion to be something horrifying.
think you are underplaying the importance of fundamentalist islam there though, lots of people descend from former colonies that face similar oppression have not formed similar violent movements, it is the fundamentalist religious ideology that is needed for that to happen
yes, i agree that people are too quick to say "it's all bloody religion" or whatever whenever they hear of something bad happens, and that there are many other factors in the network. that's actually why i haven't bothered wading in to any of the conversations on the charlie hebdo thing, because there is clearly not enough actual information about what happened out there yet
(as an aside: why is a lot of the chat around that about what the 'narrative' is? seems really weird, like an old 80s postmodern essay or an adam curtis film has come to life. never seen anything else discussed like that)
what i've seen a lot of recently is a complete denial that religious beliefs are a factor at all. it's like: you've got groups called 'the islamic state' "People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad" (boko haram), 'the lord's resistance army' and people say "actually it's nothing to with religion", when clearly that is an important factor (amongst many).
my issue with what you're saying here is that you seem to think that "class/race/etc" are more fundamental than religion, which i think is a real category error. my feeling is that gender, class and religious belief, whilst not separable in that simple sense, all make up people's identities in similar ways, through daily rituals, socialisation and so on.
anyway, this post is getting out of hand. the original point i was trying to make is that the boogieman "atheist" idiot liberals like to talk about is just a strawman that's been made up as an example of someone who's gone "too far" the other way, so that the liberals can pretend they've got a rational, considered view.
of course, i'm undermining myself in that final paragraph by inventing a "liberal" strawperson that solely exists to make myself look more radical and informed
i agree, it's just a conversation.
I agree, i've seen so much stuff along the lines of 'this is nothing to do with religion' or 'these people aren't real muslims'. It is seems it is actually impossible for a religious person to commit an atrocity as as soon as they have by definition they are labelled 'not religious' which I think is a pretty bad situation, religion shielded from responsbility.
I understand why people are doing it as they don't want innocent muslims to receive the repercussions, but by trying to separate it so completely it loses credibility
Richard Dawkins is a bit of a clown but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong, I agree with him some of the time
If you're going to make idiotic arguments, using big words that you don't really understand, it might be an idea to punctuate them properly.
I don't think it is as simple as that there is an interplay, sure people were probably sexist and homophobic without religion and it became expressed through their religion, but much of the world has moved on yet it persists in religion because it has become bound up with beliefs about absolutes.
take the abortion issue in ireland, I don't think it makes sense believe that they have an inherent thing against women rights (underlying cause) which is expressed through the symptom of the sticking with the catholic church (symptom) and denying women abortions. Maybe when a countries religion forms in the first place the underlying attitudes will become part of it but after awhile it becomes the religion that perpetuates those attitudes. The reason women can't get abortions (symptom) in ireland is because it is a catholic country (cause), obviously I have also oversimplified it as there are (probably?) some catholic countries that allow abortion, but it is a big influence against it.
although ireland is in some ways a "catholic country" where catholicism is the dominant religion and the catholic church has exerted a huge amount of influence on various spheres of life... religious belief has actually declined in ireland quite a lot. http://www.redcresearch.ie/news/significant-drop-in-irish-claiming-to-be-religious
there are a lot of pro-choice catholics out there too you know. they shouldn't have to choose between their faith and their autonomy over their own body and life decisions. the problem is one for political contestation, not theology.
in this case.
also 69% still seems quite high to me as well, as a side point.
it used to be 69% and this study (over two years ago) found it to be 47%.
you can't entirely "split" theology and issues of political contestation but you can hold politicians responsible. if they're too spineless to disagree with the church then that's their problem and one that needs to be addressed through democratic outlets.
so ... you think secular politicians should challenge the church?
I think this might now be a discussion where everyone is agreeing with each other
we need feminist politicians
we need pro-choice politicians
i'm not sure if this is a serious response but it kinda demonstrates how 'religion' is taken as a given and effectively considered separate from 'politics'. we've been discussing, erm, the political meaning and consequences of religion in ireland. the right for women to choose if and when we have babies – something which throughout history we have been variously denied – is a political issue. It's undoubtedly a political question and legitimate substance for democratic politics.
you, thingsthatfly and noise_ramones seem to be arguing that religion and lack of 'secular politicians' is, if not to blame, then at least the main reason why women in ireland still have to go ahead with pregnancies they don't want. But people, including politicians, have all sorts of dodgy, dogmatic and awful views. why does it matter if their basis is supposedly in religious belief? why does that remove it from politics? Surely it makes more sense to have the kind of messy, productive debate that would be generated by bringing this within democratic political outlets?
Ultimately, if we get more pro-choice feminist politicians in ireland, why would it matter if they're “secular” or devout catholics?
It wouldn't matter, they are just a lot less likely to be found amongst devout Catholics, because pro choice feminism and Catholicism as it stands are not very compatible
i know plenty or practising catholics who are also ardent feminists and pro-choice. maybe they'd know better than us, idk.
I am not saying it is completely impossible, i'm saying that it is a lot less likely, believing devoutly in a religion that is strictly pro-life is bound to mitigate against becoming a pro-choice. Catholicism is a constraining factor.
if you acknowledge that for some people, their religion doesn't entirely constrain them.
I'm not excluding anyone I just don't think there will be enough of them because for most their religion will be pulling them in the other direction.
we need to address the systemic power imbalance so that their religion isn't 'pulling them in the other direction'. religions being patriarchal isnt a separate problem from gender equality more generally. it needs to be addressed at all levels.
I agree that if women had more power in society in general it would be reflected in its institutions such as religion, but I think as it stands at the moment the content and beliefs of most religions are working against that and is one of the mechanisms women are oppressed in the first place. If people manage to change this and change their religion to be fair, tolerant and progressive, that would be amazing, but isn't that a recognition that as it stands that religion is wrong and needs to be changed.
I know it is a case of it being politics not religion, but I think when it comes to religion that really does get confused as for many religious people politics are derived from their religion, and although religion can change by its nature of being a claim to truth it is always going to be extremely gradual and resistant.
the way that most religions are organized can only be transformed through the adoption of feminist principles within that religion. you just can't expect people to give up their traditions, culture, beliefs, entire ways of life etc.
I totally expect people to give up traditions, culture, beliefs and entire ways of life if they are regressive. isn't that what smashing the patriarchy all about?
(why are you trolling?)
I'm not trolling, it is annoying when someone uses that as a tactic to dismiss someone they disagree with, I think in my first post I said I struggle to reconcile tolerance with tolerance of intolerance and think all my posts have been consistent with that. As for 'telling women what to do' I don't think that my view was gendered, it applies to men too but mainly to myself as the reasoning behind my own position, and in not just critical against religion for oppressing women but many other groups some of which I do belong to so should be able to comment on
Like saying someone who is against religion because they think it is repressive are trolling us bizarre, it is a very widespread view how can that be trolling?
When you said people shouldn't get married because it is a sexist institution weren't you telling women what to do? Is it ok for a women to tell women what to do but men can't, are people only able to hold views that they think appky to their specific demographic combination rather than humanity as a whole?
one last post as I worry part of my last one could be taken out of context.
Take an extreme example, but one I think is logically fair to use, FGM (which I am not linking to religion). It is a tradition/culture/belief undoubtable started by men to oppress women, but one that today in the cultures where it is practiced is supported and facilitated by female family members (if articles I have read are correct). Is it not ok for me as a ban to say I think this practice is harmful to women and that I think all people including women should be against it, or would that be a man telling women what to do? If it is not ok for a man, would it be ok for a white women to comment on the practice of women from another culture?
I know FGM and religion are not directly comparable, the former is obviously much more harmful and could never become an acceptable practice, where as religion could conceivable change (though I think it is unlikely, and regardless I have always been talking about religion as it stands), but I think it illustrates my issue with the idea that people can't comment on things they aren't directly affected by. I don't think anyone would say a man being against FGM is a man telling women what to do, so it seems to me that the reason someone would think that a man being against religion (for its oppression of women amongst other groups) is a man telling women what to do could be down to of a difference in opinion on the harmfulness of religion in the first place, which is kind of circular.
Anyway, all my posts have been me explaining my own position, one that I would hope others agree with, but I in no way believe I have any authority over anyone or would tell people what to think.
I don't consider these to be separate issues at all. Politics and Religion are inseparable in Ireland (North and South) in part due to the disproportionate representation of religious people in politics. The problem, at least in the North, is that these politicians are not voted in on social issues so the general public has no measurable say on the abortion issue. Politicians are essentially free to impose their religious beliefs in how they legislate knowing that it has no impact on their election prospects. There is no such thing as a productive debate in the current climate.
the inadequacy of the political arrangements and institutions in NI. if we had a functioning and genuinely democratic polity then politicians wouldnt be able to be horrible twats all the time. it's not religion per se but the way we deal with/manage it.
secular in a loose, ... ill-defined sense. i.e. the act of attempting to remove catholic doctrine from the political world in such a way is kinda secularist, whether the individual is religious or not
how can you be a pro-choice catholic? surely it doesn't work like that
people know more about their own Catholicism than you do? many in the church (and pretty much the official line) also still regard homosexuality as a sin but look! http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/10/dublin-priest-gay-congregation-ovation
rather than pretending they cant possibly exist or saying that they are unintelligible to us, we should support feminists (of all different faiths) speaking up within their religious communities. theologically, there are different views on abortion. its not at all empowering or helpful to tell women they need to choose between their culture or even their devoutly held beliefs and their own liberation. if they want liberation within their faith then that's what they need to strive for. if they want to leave that faith then that's fine too.
guess the bit I struggle with is someone's "own" catholicism. I don't see how you can just pick and choose the bits you like, you have to take the whole lot.
I don't understand any of it though, seems like a nonsense
but what they believe to be right.
e.g. i don't think, if there is any sort of god, or kind of greater truth that it would require society to be deeply unequal. some religious people don't think their god could really have intended for women to be oppressed. knowing what i do about the christian god, i don't personally think gender inequality is compatible with a lot of christian theology.
i think a lot of the members of the clergy understand this. it's not a coincidence that women haven't been allowed to be religious leaders in many of the major religions.
but there is a lot of sexism in the bible http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html (don't know anything about this site just googled sexism in the bible)
is it a case of taking away that the bigger picture is a good one and dismissing details like this as being of the time they were written, like there is a good religion behind it that isn't quite reflected in its books or something?
what is wrong with this reading, too selective, or misinterpreting?
How will female theologians interpret some of the more unambiguously sexist passages? Or is it a case of what bits they place emphasis on?
Weren't you fairly recently saying that people shouldn't get married because it is a sexist institution, and people were saying it may have its roots in that but it is ok now because it's meaning has changed? why is it ok to let people change the meaning of religion but not marriage?
the point "yeah i dont think that's how most theologians go about reading the bible"
the rebutal, yes it really is, and that's how it's been for literally the past 2000 years. just because a few more women are theologians ("although they are not many") does not change that. does it mean things might be getting better? maybe, but there's still a pretty massive way to go, innit.
Is that what scholars have been doing for hundreds of years?
minority report the fuck out of it
I would probably some form of gnostic discordian occultist
I don't really know what any of those words mean
maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God. Eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made. Of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Not very consistently so. I admire people who have a strong faith and can sensibly reconcile it with the realities of the world we live in.
I enjoy going to church sometimes but struggle with the belief aspect.
but i love churches.
Pretty sure it's spelt "Chvrches"
its like have you even asked your child what they are??
what about circumcision, genuinely can't believe it is allowed
probably less likely to be done without second thought but still
Both my parents are atheists and I was still christened.
What denomination was it?
but they expect you to stick a tenner in the church roof fund
people often specify "organized religion" as if it's the institutions of the catholic church and islamic leaders and all the powerful ppl that are really bad and not religious beliefs or doctrines per se. e.g. a lot of people consider fgm to be a religious tradition and practise it as part of their religiosity. even though it's not really a requirement of any organized religion or a problem caused by organized religion. there are other co-constitutive (+oppressive) structures.
I think organised religion can be bad, but in a big powerful institution kind of way, not in a way specific to religion. My problem with religion is more about the mentality, it gives people god given authority to their beliefs, by implication considers those that disagree to be wrong leading to judgemental, is insulated from reason, and often seeks to have authority over those who do not share those beliefs because they think they know better (the bit I find intolerable), all of this leads to the problems. I know that is a massive generalisation, some people are very good at keeping their religion personal.
One of the main things I struggled with in my religious upbringing was the realisation that the faith, the teachings, the Church and to a lesser extent the traditions were not all the same thing coming from a divine judgement. Like how they had evolved over time with varying motives and degrees of authority by faulty humans and that there isn't necessarily a consistent truth.
I think people go for the institutions because in the spectrum of good to bad they are the worst aspect of religions. But you're right, there is an inter-dependency by other oppressive hierarchies that use the religious structure to further specific views or practices that suit themselves and often do the religion no good. I'd like to think that these things could be tackled better by society by pointing out the lack of theological basis for them but it would help if religious leaders contributed more.
and was pretty active in church, but as time went on, I realised that the elements I liked about it weren't exclusive to religious belief (essentially the philosophy of Jesus), and the bits I thought were ridiculous (moral superiority, intolerance, dictating other peoples' lifestyles) were. Really I was using it as a tool to explore philosophy and ethics.
I had always known the concept of a god was ridiculous but I had just been too scared to admit that to myself. Also being a Christian was a bit different so I think I liked that too.
It all came to a head at some religious rally thing when some geezer was having a right rant about wanking, and I just thought... nah mate...if there's a war and I've got to pick a side and one side wants me to feel ashamed about having a chop, you can do one. I was 17.
I can't actually pinpoint when I turned against my religion, when I was a kid I kind of believed it, remember praying a lot and thinking I was talking to god. Remember at school once there was some discussion about believing in god and it was a bit of a revelation, I was like 'wait, your allowed to not believe in god?' then it just ebbed away. started to actively think it was a bad thing when I realised that it did put lots of unnecessary restrictions on me growing up which messed me up a bit.
brought up in a 'Christian household' and right next to a cathedral so all my neighbours were clergy. I was never forced to go to church by my parents though, and genuinely enjoyed going during my teens when I found a more youth-friendly evangelical place (ended up a worship leader at the youth services from 16-18). Most of my friends were Christian anyway, to varying degrees, so there was a very active social aspect to it all as well which was appealing at that age.
Then after going away to university, I struggled to find a church I felt comfortable at - most were very dictatorial in their preaching, and I was surprised at just how many were against women leading or preaching. Increasingly found it difficult to reconcile what 'the Bible teaches us' about things like sexuality, women, etc with what I believed was right myself, and stopped going regularly by the age of 19/20.
I'd still consider myself a Christian though on the whole, and I really enjoy going to church for things like evensong, Christmas and Easter services. As I've got older I've found I enjoy the 'traditional' side of church more than I used to. Don't want to go somewhere with guitars thank you very much, give me an organ and a choir any day.
Recently I've found myself in arguments with Christian friends who tell me I'm 'not a proper Christian' because I don't go to church every week, and I disagree with their stance on lots of issues such as that homosexuality is wrong, women shouldn't be bishops, abortion should be made illegal, sex should be saved for marriage, etc. It makes me sad that they think they're morally superior to everyone purely because of their religion, despite clinging to such outdated and often abhorrent views (this probably makes me a hypocrite though).
I have a bit of time for the CofE that I knew growing up. It was just a community really and everyone was really nice, and had lifestyles like anyone else- they just had this core 'love your neighbour' approach.
I just wish they'd stick to that and not running schools etc.
But everything points the opposite way.
In a research paper ("Brain Networks Shaping Religious Belief") functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to observe the brain activity of self-declared religious and non-religious subjects as they contemplated religious belief. Key findings were -
- An individual's religious belief depends on three cognitive dimensions: (1) God's perceived level of involvement in the subject's daily life, (2) God's perceived emotion, and (3) the subject's doctrinal or experiential knowledge of religion.
- These cognitive dimensions can be mapped to specific regions of the brain with notable differences detected in the way those brain regions communicate.
- Religious subjects with beliefs based on religious scripture tend to use pathways associated with language when they contemplate religion.
- Religious subjects who perceive a supernatural agent at work in their daily lives tend to use brain pathways associated with the regulation of fear when they contemplate religion.
- Non-religious subjects tend to use pathways associated with visual imagery when they contemplate religion.
- An individual's religious belief is likely to result from a combination of biological and social factors as social factors can influence the development of brain pathways.
if everybody was just a nice middle class village hall type religious person and they just had cake sales and lived and died in the belief that their entire existence had some sort of meaning then things would be great
this is what religious people are like
You are blocked from following @RichardDawkins and viewing @RichardDawkins's Tweets. Learn more
here's terre thaemlitz on richard dawkins. i don't agree with everything she says but, fuck it. i think it's a good read.
i.e. he is racist
is that relevant to his atheism though? Do you know who is racist, Jesus, didn't he say he was only there to help jewish people and the rest were dogs.
and he literally thinks a biologist could investigate racial difference.
kinda agree with that photo/man, maybe not the wording 'must die' but the general view
do you also accept that religious people (jews and muslims for example) are racialized?
I don't understand the question, the photo doesn't mention that, are you talking about dawkins? I believe there is a complicated relationship between race (which as you say doesn't actual exist but there is a social reality to it) and religion, the biggest factor in a persons religion is not choice but the region/family they are born into, and therefore being anti a religion can be a proxy for racism. I don't think i'm racist though as I am against all religion and am brown.
just that i think sometimes, as you say, 'criticism' or 'critique' of religion is heavily racialized (and i think bill maher buys into this tbh).
not exactly exclusive to atheism though is it
people believe in 'god'
A lot of people say things along the lines of 'you can't prove that god doesn't exist' and while that is true I think you can prove the god of every religion doesn't exist because you can prove all of their creation myths are false and so it follows the rest of it is not to be believed.
A lot of arguments over the existence of god kind of reach an end point when someone says 'you cannot prove he does not exist' which is true, no one knows for sure how the universe was created and can disprove some super natural intelligence for sure.
But having said that I don't think that gives any support to any of the gods depicted in religion, because those scriptures do give details on how the universe was made which we now know does not hold up. So you can infer that those scriptures are not accurate, and the god they depict does not exist.
because they had a pleasant experience in a church once when they were a kid, as did their parents, and that clouds their judgement
spinoza! spinoza! spinoza!
be really anti-atheist. It's the new atheist. I'm ahead of trend by being anti anti atheist
now unemployed former philosophy students take these threads super seriously!
i'm a theoretical physicist, don't be tarnishing me with the humanities badge THANK YOU
Didn't think anyone actually paid enough attention to me/my moaning on here to remember details about my life.
i got the impression it's now trendy to be anti-religion again
*had* to go to church every Sunday except Remembrance Sundays til I was 15, my mum's the secretary there and she made me and my brother come with her during the school holidays until we were 'old enough to look after ourselves' (14 :/ ), and it's the main venue for extracurricular activities in my town too. i once worked out i've spent 3,500 hours of my life in that one building. obviously i'm an atheist now.
making your child go to church against their will for a long time is a fucking terrible idea.
used to look forward to it for weeks in advance because I could stay at home and play with my toys and not have to wear a pinafore. it's probably the reason I really don't care about RD/poppies/war related stuff
Flooding ALL White countries and ONLY White countries with non-White immigration combined with forced integration is a program of White genocide.
you've got to start watching them like a fucking hawk.
I've been finding myself drawn back to religion recently, despite being very 'lol no' for a few years. I guess it helps that even during that time I've always felt "catholic" as being a strong part of my identity, so there's not an issue of belonging as such. If I hadn't lapsed then I don't think I'd have any problem at all with ideological differences, I mean most people from my church / school were generally liberal etc, but I definitely feel pressure in that respect when I think about returning. Mainly in terms of people judging me and seeing me as betraying ideals. Which is funny, because my family, church and school played a large part in forming me into the person that I am, and never at any point suggested I think anything to the contrary of what I believe (by "church" here I mean the specific church I attended, as opposed to Vatican teaching).
I think there's so much that's amazing about religion. Admittedly for me part of it is the beauty, romanticism and history. And part is just the knowledge that there are all these people, who despite being on the periphery of your life, genuinely care about you, and who will still care about you whatever you do. I'm still sent birthday cards with lovely messages by people from church who I haven't seen in maybe 12 years or so.
When it comes to actual belief though, I'm still not really sure. It's kind of funny that anti-religion types talk about brainwashing and conditioning and whatever, when part of what made me distance myself so much from religion is the type of language used - "stupid", "irrational", "nonsense", "gullible". It's pretty forceful stuff (who wants to be thought of as stupid?) and being incredibly concerned about what others think I let it get to me in a far bigger way than any religious authority.
And as for 'religion is the root of all evil', or even the toned-down 'all religion does is cause suffering'? Religious groups and figures have been behind some of the most progressive forces throughout history and across the world. I don't disagree for a second that there are also ones who have caused intense suffering, but when you have "religious people" at the polar opposites and the vast majority just somewhere in the middle, it's probably an indication that religion in and of itself isn't really the problem.
Sorry, this was super rambly, mostly because my thoughts aren't remotely coherent. I just wish people (YES on both sides) would be a bit nicer so it wasn't super messy and people didn't have to feel guilt or the need to constantly justify themselves.
certain prominent atheists say about the world...
How many DiSers are going to disagree with this: “some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system”
Do I agree with everything currently taught / implied the Catholic faith? No. Do I agree with much of it? Yes. Do I think that following a religion whilst considering aspects of it carefully is a very good foundation for a kind and worthwhile life? Absolutely.
sounds like you mean "throwing away the wacky parts", like being sentenced to death for ordering a lobster thermidor for example.
None of the noble aspects you cited above are exclusive to one, or any religion. They are all human constructions.
You seem to be suggesting that's a bad thing to do?!
No, they're absolutely not, and I haven't suggested that at all! Of course there are many non-religious people who hold and act according to extremely virtuous values, and needless to say there are many religious people who do not. I figured that went without saying?
Perhaps I should have said "can be a good foundation" rather than "is a good foundation". Surely the wording of "a good foundation" should have implied I meant there were numerous ones though?
is that it accords a lot of time for reflection, which is something that I think is perhaps a bit lost at the moment. Again, it's by no means an exclusive thing, but I definitely found that I thought a lot more about other people, their welfare, my responsibilities etc a lot more when I went to church. Whether a result of prayer / readings / confession etc. I think such things can be very conducive to being a considerate person.
merely a set of pronouncements, and in christianitys case, many of which would make a you a criminal in every country on earth.
If you threw all the religious aspects away, would you be unable to be responsible/caring/considerate without it?
It was a wonderful and really insightful ramble x
#tangent you are amazingly and startlingly bright and eloquent. I know you're trying to work out the next steps for your future just now, but take your time and be happy because your brilliance will find its outlet, it really will.
Thank you, that's such a lovely thing to say. Genuinely got me a bit emotional haha. And not patronising at all! :-)
The community aspect is nice and definitely something lacking in secular society, but I think even that can have a negative flip side as the inclusiveness is only extended to those of the same religion. I went to a CoE primary school, my friends would go to a church run after school monday club, they refused to let me attend because I had a different religion, only a really minor and stupid example of religion dividing people but probably my first inkling that this religion thing did not sit right with me (actually I think that was when I read a children's book on noah's ark and was traumatised)
this, this, this, this, this!!!
Reminded me to check what the WSWS were saying about it
'Marxists are no strangers to the struggle to overcome the influence of religion among the masses. But they conduct this struggle with the understanding that religious faith is sustained by conditions of adversity and desperate hardship. Religion is not to be mocked, but understood and criticized as Karl Marx understood and criticized it:
“To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion." ...
One has only to read these words to see the intellectual and moral chasm that separates Marxism from the unhealthy milieu of the ex-left political cynicism that has found expression in Charlie Hebdo.
The idea of a rigid set of beliefs that a person interested in spiritualism has to be confined to is inherently dangerous. And that is no spurious criticism when people have carried out official and unofficial atrocities in the name of their religion or in the adherence to rhe true reading of a text that is treated like a primary source witness account when actually it usually amounts to the politically motivated rendering of 15th hand re-tellings of things that may or may not have happened.
Religion was and is a force stopping us evolving. Personal religious belief i have time for but i would equate it often to a not very vigorous fling with philosophy and meditation.
in which people are "confined" just demonstrates that you have no real understanding of religion.
As for religion being a force that stops us from evolving, others have already noted on this thread that a vast number of progressive ideas & inventions have had religious belief as their driving force (both in the Islamic world and the West).
It is a pretty universal human trait, most cultures believe in *something*. Which either proves there is indeed a God or that it is some kind of innate human survival strategy to unite us and help us achieve common goals who knows. I would say the latter looking at it on balance. Arguably we don't really need that any more, but people seem to like it. It just gets retarded when people quibble about silly little things like how to interpret certain phrases written down by goat herders 2000 years ago then translated through 3 different languages and applied to life in 2015.
Think only Europe I think
we don't need to cling onto religions any more.
what it is, is that we evolved to be the animals that we are, almost all modern human societies 'break' their youngsters into being 'adults' (rather than just growing up this means learning to ignore what we feel as animals if it does not fit in with society......this can be mutually beneficial....but when the society norms are too arbitary then it often involves NOT explaining fully why something should or should not be done, it relies on convention rather than really explaining so that the individual is fully aware........this results in many 'gaps' (that are genuine spiritual gaps) that cannot be explained by secular society to many individuals, this leaves the way for unthinking but competative, religeosness.
The need that some/many people can feel the need for (cos it aint explained o them through secular society) is not something to be scorned or dismissed......unconsidered/unhelpful/cynical 'exploitation' of this need can be scorned or dismissed
I can't be bothered these days. I have read every post here though. Good thread.
All I'll contribute, that hasn't been said already (I don't think) is - I find it sad and strange to still be having to consider religion, in the same way it is sad that we still have to consider sexism and racism in society.
There are fundamental (no pun intended) differences, so it's not a straight comparison, but it's close enough to stoke the fires in this thread ;)
I like how he is undermining the old phrase 'is the pope catholic?'
Although his defending of the church's response to child abuse is not good
there are nice christians and nasty christians
nice muslims and nasty muslims
nice buddhists (and yes even nasty budhists)
the problem is everyone (even athiests) get mesmerised by the banner, that they all choose to fly under (see this is proof that witchcraft is real.....banners, words, glyphs, 'special words' 'taboos' these are all non denominational and even secular things, that have greater significance that they actually are......people DO give more significance to things than they should.....more significance to words, positions, appearance etc
I think that I understand religeon, although of course this is too broad and generalising, in that there is a difference between spirituality or spiritual gaps that are left (for some) by secular society not being able to explain why individuals animal nature needs to be 'altered'.
There is also the context of the ongoing battle between ideas, that has shaped the ideas and arguments that many people inherit.
when people discuss religeon they do not define enough, do they mean the heirarchy? do they mean the argument and trial and developement of the arguments? do they mean 'ALL that fly under the same banner' (of say christianity, or buddhism....cos they can manifest themselves very differently) do they mean 'the sub-enomination that they last had an argument with'?v do they mean the ones that shout the loudest? dp they mean the ones that seem to be most compassionate and represent the best? If you start to see it more like that then you realise that the important thing it the way the individual applies/interprets something.......often by religeon people think of the negative where the individual has abandoned any autonomy at how to interpret their 'religeon' or culture....and instead follow mad mullahs or evangalists, or whoever is in the religeous power heirarchy.......this can be true, and so 'preachers' and 'teachers' vicars priests are perhaps something to be discussed as something seperate from religeon, as irresponsible ones (or ones with influence beyond their personal responsibility/ability/skill/compassion) can be dangerous in secular contexts too.
Heirarchical power structures are also a thing in their own right, that can e secular or religeous, and these too have their own limitiations in that they get their ow gravity and become their own thing (regardless of what they purport to do on the the tin)
of course all this muddying makes it difficult to neatly discuss 'religeon' .....but that is correct, it is difficult to discuss.....no matter what your 'opinion' is, you are not going to 'dismantle' something that is so amorphous and diverse as the 'religeon' that is so generalised in its meaning.
......instead we need to view and discuss things in different terms.........like agreeing that those who are regarded by different communities as teachers or advisors (in secular or non secular areas) who seek to establish horizontle cross discipline/denomination links and partnerships and understanding (rather than emphasising vertical heirarchical discipline (passing on orders from above to the scum below)) are a good thing who we should support (no matter what they are called) as they will get little help from the vertical power heirarchys that they are within, so we, the chattering people need to support them mostly.......our chatter is not going to bring down av heirarchy or 'convert' people, but we can support those who seek to break our from within these heirarchies to join with others outside.
being properly atheist I'd say I probably have more of an ambiguous spirituality with vaguely humanist leanings.
Although I still find religion overall quite a fascinating subject.
i'll admit I only skimmed this, they have managed to incorporate progressive politics into their religion, it is possible. but as the article says 'in their respective contexts, an 'anomaly', a word they contest, for cramping a heteronormative, patriarchal and racist system'.
They a clearly two very intellectual people, who consider the issues carefully. I just do not think it representative of most people who are religious, many of whom are indoctrinated and look to religious beliefs as something unchanging not something to be challenged and brought forward. I wish them luck, and hope they have influence, but I think it is likely the beliefs of the majority within and mechanics of their religion will resist
a major part of problems with discussion of religeon is the reliance and emphasis that people place on 'authorities' (not of power systems, but of 'famous writing').
This sort of referencing authorities or sources is something that can get lost in itself, much religeous debate ends up doing this......its like legal operatives having so many tomes that they refer to for precedence, yet without any discipline or conclusion (thus there is no advancement, just ever more granulating schisms) or intellectual riguer precided over by wisdom and public examination.
feel like i've been a bit belligerent in recent religion threads (and real life conversations), been thinking about it all a lot and can't sleep anyway so thought i's explain where my angle comes from. So my parents are part of a pretty small religion (SSP, I am not going to name it because it is blatantly a religion that googles itself, and a small community I don't want to fall out with), the explicit aim of this religion is world peace, equality (racial and gender) and tolerance, and yet its content and practices contradict that. For example it justifies women not being able to take on the highest positions in the religion with the teaching 'men and women are equal but different', when it comes to gay people it is very clear that they must be shown tolerance but it is considered a sin (they claim on a par with any non marital sex but in practice gets more criticism, a 'spiritual disease' as one 'infallible' person put it), and despite being 'tolerated' if someone is too open about it their community are obligated to report them to the local branch and they can be sanctioned by having some of their rights suspended (voting, attendance). Self evidently not peaceful tolerant of equal. If someone were to want to challenge this politically they would face resistance, 'infallible' people within the religion's past have made 'infallible' decisions about these issues. So go back to the writings and reinterpret theology? no, as nothing can be published by a member of this religion about this religion without being approved centrally. start a new branch of the religion based on the same teachings but more progressively interpreted? no, the religion believes in unity and disunity is a sin, if someone goes too far in challenging the religion they can get labelled in a way that obligates members of the religion (including family) to shun them. The religion has also attempts legal action to suppress others 'falsely' claiming their religion. Work for political change outside of the religion? nope the religion forbids supporting partisan politics, and other forms of politics because it is against the principle of unity. so yeah, this religion is pretty resistant to change, and I find it infuriating as it so clearly contradicts its aims. It may seem like a really specific non representative example which it is, but I guess I see it like they have fine tuned all these tactics that are often used by religions to resist change, claims to infallibility, labelling as false believers, peer pressure, prioritising religion over politics, basically expecting obedience to the majority and so resistant to change that although it can be done it would be very gradual. Think thats why I am conscious of it as it is so well defined in the only religion I have experienced, but I guess that also makes me incredibly bias.
much pressure to reveal....which is fine.
Its interesting because the problematic issues that you mention are incredibly common features of many religeons/sub-religeons, they seem very very familiar.
However the steps and aspects that have been put into place to actually prevent any change in outlook start to make whatever it is that your parents are in, look like something that can be described as a cult.....perhaps a very mild cult, but nevertheless the types of boundaries that have been set uo seem to definately qualify it as thus.
Of course, even the RC church (If papal infallability and word of god comingth through pope is emphasised) could be said to be a cult too (It doesnt look so culty when you have someone like Francis, but it does when you have someone like oberfuhrer ratzinger.
Its interesting how RC is able to ignore the logical conundrum of papal infallability when successive popes can appear to be soooo different.
How does the thing that you are involved in deal with that? Does the 'infallable' person get replaced by a voted in new one (when they pass on)? Do they always try to pick one thats identical?
Yeah I do consider it slightly cult like, don't think it quite meets the criteria as no living charismatic leader. The infallible figure passed it on to two children, inevitable power grab and the losing brothers side was excommunicated, more infighting so it skipped a generation to the wining brothers grandson (all other living family members excommunicated, unity). The grandson infallible predicted a long line if guardians but then died without children, so the religion instead formed a sort of council to take it forward (some objected saying this was not what was set out in the religion so they got labelled as non believers), think some works of the infaiklable grandson have been amended to deemphasise their line if guardians claim as the religion has control of publications (and are considered infallible themselves now for some reason). If you are interested it begins with b.
Oh and as for how the heads of the religion replace council members, it is on paper a democratic but campaigning is banned (disunity) which heavily favours the incumbent so the reality is quite nepotistic with people being unchallenged and then almost informally passing it on to their chosen successor
Oh and this religions aim is a one world theocratic government
could it be Bahá'í? I wonder.
Interestingly a lot of multinational companies seem to be more favourably inclined towards this (including the main one I worked for)
pm me with any answer to my question if you feel like it