this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
267 points (82.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43890 readers
773 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not religious at all. But in responding to your question OP: we don't have to understand why people believe. Religion just isn't for us, and that's fine. Other people find it has value, and that's fine too. The fact that religion has lasted this long with this many people is proof in itself that there's some value people get out of it. We don't have to get it to understand that.
All the comments here that explain religion solely as dumb or irrational are just as closed minded as the people they're criticising.
On point, additionally religion has also effectively associated itself with spirituality. It's also associated itself with caring for others, volunteering, community, togetherness and acceptance. Additionally it's a great place to network and organize communities. Even if belief has faded, tradition is usually important with that group of people.
It's only recently in the past century or so that serious spirituality in our culture has been able to detach itself from religion, sometimes forming new ones
Hard disagree. Religion has a measurable impact on people voting against the rights of minorities, and it deserves every bit of scrutiny it has coming its way.
It's not like Bigfoot or flat earth. This shit is having serious consequences for others, physically and mentally.
Religion itself? Or man using religious dogma to justify the uglier natures of their internal belief systems and cherry-picking religious quotes to shoehorn their false righteousness into moral discussion? Religion is a powerful tool and it can be used to drum up donations for an orphanage, or leveraged and wielded by people who aren't seeking to enlighten themselves at all apart from learning how to use religion to control people.
I agree with you. Using religion to manipulate people for political reasons is not really a religion problem. If you eradicate religion, there are many other levers to pull. In fact, manipulating religious groups these days also requires using these other weaknesses against people and then convincing them to ignore the conflict with their religious teachings.
Ahh yes, agreed. Like prosperity Jesus wanting you to be wealthy despite saying in the Bible "it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
Or a year round favorite: "Love thy neighbor" (unless they're people we don't like, such as LGBT, immigrants, liberals etc. )
Both. Texts like the Bible tell you how to conduct slavery, endorses violence against men who have gay sex, and in no uncertain terms (and in many different ways) tells you women are worth a fraction of men and shouldn't be trusted to preach.
Yet there are things that aren't endorsed in the Bible are far too commonly preached by Christians. Like being against trans people, opposing abortion rights (in fact the Bible tells you how to induce an abortion and that you should do it if your wife cheats on you)... and like you said, some drum up donations for the express purpose of leveraging control over others, or to buy private jets, in spite of the life Jesus led and in spite of his teachings.
Letβs say we agree.
Do you find this post more scientific or more religious?
Because I will agree with you if we can agree that the position being taken here is driven by treating science as a religion ( one they poorly understand ).
The question itself isn't scientific or religious. And nobody in this thread is conducting science, but the majority of us here definitely trust the scientific method over faith.
That's not to say we take scientific claims as gospel like theists do with theistic claims. Science is about updating our understanding as new evidence is presented. Religion is about being handed the truth.
It's also a great path to getting people to do what you want. I was already an atheist when my father and I had a philosophical discussion regarding religion when I was an adolescent. He brought up this point early in the discussion. I only need to look around at all the bullshit laws getting passed that religious zealots vote for against their own interest to confirm that this is true.
The Southern Baptist Church just had their annual conference and decided that their position on Invitro Fertilization is against the procedure. How does that help anyone? It doesn't.
It is just as easy to point to the ideas of the extreme members of the βnew atheistβ movement as evidence that they are a dangerous cult.
Using the Southern Baptist Church as your example of religion is not a very good argument. Implying that atheists are somehow more rational as a group is not really a great argument either.
By the way, I am an atheist. I do no consider my beliefs to be unassailable scientific conclusions though. I recognize that many of my beliefs and preferences lack the robust rational foundation I would like them to. I doubt I am the pinnacle of morality or ethics ( more than doubt - but I am not looking to trash my own reputation here ).
Voting against your own interests or scapegoating others for what you see as damage against yourself or even just plain old hate do not require religion. Humans have lots of ways at arriving at those and being manipulated into them.
I think we understand it pretty well, actually. They start as political causes for people to gather under, they maintain because humans are easy to condition to associate good things with their "savior."
They're all just figurative pavlov's dogs, at this point. Lobotomized to give the correct responses on queue.