[a dense loner]

not quietly

[Fiend]

Gotta have a use for all dem fishes

[DubDom]

Here's a couple of questions.

For those who would regard themselves on balance against organised religion.
Is it what "believers" place their belief in, or is it more the fact that belief itself is problematic?
Or is it the "organised" bit of religion that is the point of contention?

I'm going through a period in life where I'm assessing my own position on these matters and I am interested in what other people think about this, genuinely.

For those who do have some form of belief, I'd be keen to know what they regard as the difference between religious and spiritual.

[johnx2]

...the interesting thing about this discussion is how the meaning of "don't drink the kool aid" has shifted. It originated in Wolfe's 1968 classic of new journalism...

...referring to the LSD-laced cola at 'acid test' happenings. 'Don't drink the kool aid' originally was a warning against uncritical acceptance of an idea, and as we see in this thread is still used this way, and appropriately so for what my view's worth.

Jonestown of course came ten years later. However, a quick google tells me that the phrase is now linked in in most minds with the massacre, so I guess I'd better take this into account. Hey ho.

[tomtom]

I think religious people are like Man U fans. I really don't mind - but every now and then you get one who just crows on about how wonderful they are and how they are the best thing ever etc.. And I want to punch them

Please note the smiley...

[Oldmanmatt]

I think religious people are like Man U fans. I really don't mind - but every now and then you get one who just crows on about how wonderful they are and how they are the best thing ever etc.. And I want to punch them

Please note the smiley...

So...

You smile as you punch them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave]

Here's a couple of questions.

For those who would regard themselves on balance against organised religion.
Is it what "believers" place their belief in, or is it more the fact that belief itself is problematic?
Or is it the "organised" bit of religion that is the point of contention?

Personally for me I don't give a toss what mythical wizard in the sky people chose to believe in, or what old book they chose to selectively misrepresent to live their life by. It's their funeral, literally.

What I have an issue with is that most big mainstream religions have an extraordinarily poor track record, continued to this day, for causing divisions, discrimination, and most importantly in attempting to force their views on others.

On the other hand there is a lot of good charity work done by religious bodies, but I have the feeling that the individuals involved in this would be doing it anyway if they weren't religious. Plus athiests can do charity too:

[tomtom]

I think religious people are like Man U fans. I really don't mind - but every now and then you get one who just crows on about how wonderful they are and how they are the best thing ever etc.. And I want to punch them

Please note the smiley...

So...

You smile as you punch them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meant I was being silly :p

I have not punched anyone since I left school.. I've slit a few brake lines, loosened a few wheel nuts, dropped the odd electric fire in baths etc..

[DubDom]

Was I being too serious?

I was genuinely curious. The only thing that has persuaded me agains the position of atheism is that it seems to incite such intolerant statements about those who belief, and I thought that was the problem that a lot of atheists have with extreme expressions of faith.
I suppose that I have always just thought that we all exist on some kind of agnostic spectrum, and at each end, those who express certainty are in some form of denial....

[chris20]

Here's a couple of questions.

For those who would regard themselves on balance against organised religion.
Is it what "believers" place their belief in, or is it more the fact that belief itself is problematic?
Or is it the "organised" bit of religion that is the point of contention?

Personally for me I don't give a toss what mythical wizard in the sky people chose to believe in, or what old book they chose to selectively misrepresent to live their life by. It's their funeral, literally.

What I have an issue with is that most big mainstream religions have an extraordinarily poor track record, continued to this day, for causing divisions, discrimination, and most importantly in attempting to force their views on others.

On the other hand there is a lot of good charity work done by religious bodies, but I have the feeling that the individuals involved in this would be doing it anyway if they weren't religious. Plus athiests can do charity too:

+1 I'm not a fan of religious charities as I prefer the idea of doing good deeds out of empathy rather than a desire to have a better after life, plus I find it hard to disassociate it with religious missionaries.

Also I don't think religious ideas should have any sway on political policies, particularly abortion and euthanasia/assisted suicide

[tomtom]

Being serious (sorry) - its probably worth dividing and defining the terminology a bit more...

Peoples beliefs may be in god, gods (of all the various flavours, books,statues etc..) or no god(s).

Religion is to me the organised structure based around that belief - that can at its most benign level be a group of people who gather around to share views/beliefs etc.. or at its least benign level be something that exerts influence and control over its believers... Or: at best a social club, at worst a cross between organised crime and the worst of dictatorships. 

Belief I have no problem with. You can be a Man U fan if you want to be...

Religion? Thats the scary one...

[Oldmanmatt]

I think, once you pass the point of atheism (as demonstrated by TT and I) it becomes difficult to view it all as anything other than silly.

And then strident assertion of belief and assumption of damnation and less than human status of the rest of humanity; rapidly transmute from funny to infuriating.
For me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DubDom]

I think, once you pass the point of atheism (as demonstrated by TT and I) it becomes difficult to view it all as anything other than silly.

And then strident assertion of belief and assumption of damnation and less than human status of the rest of humanity; rapidly transmute from funny to infuriating.
For me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I must admit that feels a lot like received notions that are inherited from this current time and place, sorry if I appear a bit dismissive, or attacking but it seems as though holding that position permits passing judgemental statements out of a sense of huge superiority. In addition, isn't that based on a pretty broad brush summary of motivations? I'm not trying to be a shit stirrer, sorry if I just did!

Being serious (sorry) - its probably worth dividing and defining the terminology a bit more...

Peoples beliefs may be in god, gods (of all the various flavours, books,statues etc..) or no god(s).

Religion is to me the organised structure based around that belief - that can at its most benign level be a group of people who gather around to share views/beliefs etc.. or at its least benign level be something that exerts influence and control over its believers... Or: at best a social club, at worst a cross between organised crime and the worst of dictatorships. 

Belief I have no problem with. You can be a Man U fan if you want to be...

Religion? Thats the scary one...

Is it really any more scary than the "Worst dictatorships"? I must admit I can't really see a difference between that belief system and those that shore up Pol Pot, or Stalin, or North Korea? I hear what you're saying about the organised bit. My take on that is I think we've caught a cold on the whole ideology thing (probably the whole authority thing in actual fact) and religion is the epitome of that.

The fact that armies can march into war waving red books, crosses, crescents, there have even been occasions where buddhist armies have marched into battle, not many but the fact that there have at all(!?), anything seems to have that "Lord of the Flies" potential when there's enough humanity involved. I heard somewhere recently that the archaeological record for warfare and agriculture align, since you have something to defend, or take. Perhaps we should be directing all our vitriol at the NFU rather than the church of England?

Shit, I'm sounding like an apologist for religion, I was more intending to be a "devils advocate" (Oh fuck I'm in trouble now -that's a jesuit notion isn't it?).

[galpinos]

Atheist here. Dad was RC, Mum is a Methodist, and despite not really being religious through my youth is swaying slightly more that way as she gets older. My main issue with religion (within the UK, I obviously have issues with organised religion and the wars/horrors/atrocities acted out in it's name across the globe) is that I have seen first hand how divisive and destructive it can be, I've seen it crush self confidence and take advantage (in my opinion) of people at vulnerable times. It appears to be a tool to gain and maintain power and I want none of it.


(P.S. I also believe anyone who puts agonistic really means atheist but is scared to say it - i.e. doesn't believe in god. Agonistic is a term that never needed coining)

[Oldmanmatt]

Having been involved in the Sri Lankan fun and games during the early 90's, I would strongly question the idea of Buddhist pacifism...

All ideas expressed here in, very much my own and arrived at the hard way.

This does not guarantee either veracity or even that I will hold the same opinion after dinner tonight (possibly even after the next coffee, should it prove to be sufficiently epiphinous).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DubDom]

Having been involved in the Sri Lankan fun and games during the early 90's, I would strongly question the idea of Buddhist pacifism...

All ideas expressed here in, very much my own and arrived at the hard way.

This does not guarantee either veracity or even that I will hold the same opinion after dinner tonight (possibly even after the next coffee, should it prove to be sufficiently epiphinous).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough, enjoy that coffee! "The hard way", sounds worrying. Sam Harris might tell us that we don't really have our own opinions at all (the self is an illusion etc) http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2

[abarro81]

When I was a kid I was quite 'antireligious', now I'm very chilled about what people believe but find it interesting still. I find militant atheists just as dumb and annoying as militant religious people for sure. I'm also far less convinced in my belief/presumption that there isn't a god as I grow older

[Oldmanmatt]

I have as yet only read this article and the abstract of the paper (no time to find a way around the paywall), but an interesting take on the impact of religion on a population.

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-religion-politics-social-tension-conflict.html

I wonder and would hypothesise that whilst Warfare might have become "visible" in the Paeleo/archeological record at the dawn of settlement and agriculture; the likelihood of conflict between rival clans for resources prior to that seems great.

Scrapping over the best foraging/berry patch, the best salmon run, largest Elk herd to follow; even best winter camp ground?

I wonder if the clan of the Holy Magic Antler, did in the clan of the All knowing Squashed Berry (those false idol worshipping scum, encroaching on the lands and paths given by the almighty Magic Antler (which makes a magical, musical noise when High Priest Umog the righteous waves it in the wind)).

Nb.
Not so much a straw man argument, as a rather smelly, unwashed, hairy and fur clad argument; with pointy sticks and lobbed rocks...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[a dense loner]

What are you talking about?

[DAVETHOMAS90]

What are you talking about?

Quick! Someone indoctrinate him! 

[Oldmanmatt]

What are you talking about?

Oops ! Sorry forgot to quote DubDom further up, I was replying to this:

"I heard somewhere recently that the archaeological record for warfare and agriculture align, since you have something to defend, or take. Perhaps we should be directing all our vitriol at the NFU rather than the church of England?"

And I was implying that religion, I suspect, began with small gods and small congregations, but probably equally fervent followers intent on pleasing their Lord.
That fact that "pleasing the Lord" usually seems to coincide with their own selfish needs and wants is, I'm sure, merely coincidental.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DubDom]

That fact that "pleasing the Lord" usually seems to coincide with their own selfish needs and wants is, I'm sure, merely coincidental.

Yes Oldmanmatt, I suspect you're right. I think I'm right in saying the early development of religion that you describe is called "Totemism" by sociologists. Our contemporary equivalent is probably various forms of "confirmation bias"!
The paper that you link to (http://phys.org/news/2015-12-religion-politics-social-tension-conflict.html) just shows how little changes eh? Although broadly speaking we've managed pretty well to avoid too much social tension on this thread, have we not? Maybe we deserve a pat on the back!!!

[fatneck]

I can only speak from my own experiences but we (my church) run the North Liverpool food bank, we offer debt counselling, run a 12 step recovery programme and operate 8 community groups that engage people from 8 - 80 in a huge range of activities from detached youth work to gardening on our allotment. This is not a big church by the way - maybe 150 people.

None of this is for profit and no one is coerced. We do this out of a desire to see the local (socially deprived) community improved and to fill a genuine gap in provision. We don't do this to get to heaven or to gain reward. I agree that those involved might well be doing this if they weren't believers but I don't think the fact that they are detracts from the benefits of doing it!

I think we are well off topic though?

[Rocksteady]

History seems to preclude the possibility of an omniscient, omnipresent and loving god, and science seems to make one unnecessary. So I'm not religious. Except there is an immanence I have sometimes felt, in some unreasoning part of me, usually in the outdoors, by the sea, in the mountains, beneath a majestic sky.

I think anything that gets people together and makes them think about helping others is a really good thing, and all the major religions, as far as I can tell, include this as part of their doctrine. Some people may do this anyway but any encouragement is great.

On the other hand, while questions of concrete things, such as land or resources can potentially be resolved by agreement and compromise and commonsense, questions of religion must ultimately be irreconcilably divisive - it's my sky-fairy's word over yours. It takes a person to be bigger than their belief to come to a solution, and that is a rare thing.   

[abarro81]

On your first point, I found the CS Lewis book 'the problem with pain' interesting even if I didn't agree with all his points