Religions doing awful things

[Erick Estrada]

The thing about being an atheist is that you know that one day you are going to die and that's it. Game over. The reality is a lot starker than believing that you are going to a better place after life.

[CliffFletcher]

Beyond the social participation benefits, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (an atheist btw) argues religion serves as an avenue to transcendence.

Why we love to lose ourselves in religion

… I was beginning to see connections between experiences as varied as falling in love, watching a sunset from a hilltop, singing in a church choir, and reading about a virtuous person. In all cases there’s a change to the self – a kind of opening to our higher, nobler possibilities.

As I tried to make sense of the psychology of these “self-transcendent emotions,” I began to realize that religions are often quite skilled at producing such feelings. Some use meditation, some use repetitive bowing or circling, some have people sing uplifting songs in unison.

Some religions build awe-inspiring buildings; most tell morally elevating stories. Some traditional shamanic rites even use natural drugs. But every known religion has some sort of rite or procedure for taking people out of their ordinary lives and opening them up to something larger than themselves.

It was almost as if there was an “off” switch for the self, buried deep in our minds, and the world’s religions were a thousand different ways of pressing the switch…

https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/01/opini...gion-evolution

[photon]

There's certainly less existential dread believing that you'll exist forever vs facing your own mortality and that the universe will continue without you forever.

It's also a lot easier to just follow a set of right vs wrong rules that someone said you have to follow or suffer eternally vs having to figure it out for yourself and do it because it's right (and not to avoid eternal damnation).

[CliffFletcher]

double-post

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by photon

There's certainly less existential dread believing that you'll exist forever vs facing your own mortality and that the universe will continue without you forever.

It's also a lot easier to just follow a set of right vs wrong rules that someone said you have to follow or suffer eternally vs having to figure it out for yourself and do it because it's right (and not to avoid eternal damnation).

Is it easier? I'd think there is a lot of anxiety around making sure you follow a bunch of arbitrary and inconsistent rules, lest you be damned for eternity. That sounds downright stressful to me, and I'd suspect it is a reason why they so desperate force their own views on society.

[MRCboicgy]

I just wish organized religions (i.e. the churches themselves, not the beliefs) would focus on the Dos, rather than the Don'ts.

Do be a good person
Do treat others well
Do expand your knowledge (learning, science)
Do help those in need
Do take care of yourself and family
Do be a good citizen...

Instead, they can use the scare tactics of Don't to enforce a dogmatic view, but that drags people in, because it's easier to yell at others about the Don'ts, rather than put in the effort to be good.

Now, turning it to my personal experience - I think of going to church as a confused gay kid and hearing about how damned I am. In fact, so much of the talk was about all the things that were evil and to be scared of them, that I never heard how to be good. I was lucky to have amazing parents who taught me how to treat others, and who never talked about the Don'ts in our house. Anyway...

You know, you can still say/believe that doing X is a sin in your heart, but believing someone is sinning shouldn't preclude you from being a good person to them. That's what so many so-called religions are missing, as hiding behind "Evil!" is the way to keep engagement up. It's also a great excuse for people to be dickish to people they aren't comfortable with.
Utah is always at the tops of the charts with homeless LGBTQ+ and related suicide rates, because so many (not all) families just toss their queer kids aside in the name of their beliefs.

Here's my jaded advice to anyone religious reading this: if you have all the Do's of your belief system down pat, then go put your efforts into the Don'ts, otherwise hit those dos

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by photon

It's also a lot easier to just follow a set of right vs wrong rules that someone said you have to follow or suffer eternally vs having to figure it out for yourself and do it because it's right (and not to avoid eternal damnation).

Very few people - religious or not - independently develop a moral code. Morality and social norms are set out for all of us by our society. And Christian morality is so deeply embedded in Western society’s values that we no longer even recognize their origins.

Tom Holland (another atheist) lays out this persuasive argument in Dominion.

REVIEW – TOM HOLLAND “DOMINION: THE MAKING OF THE WESTERN MIND”

…Holland’s final chapters explore the paradox that, in the west at least, we live in a post-Christian world but one that is so permeated by the ideas and principles that he traces over the course of his history of Christianity that we are like fish swimming in the water of Christian thinking – so used to it that we do not notice it is there. So the Beatles could sing “all you need is love” and not need to explain what that means or why it “makes sense”. Or rich, self-indulgent rock stars can put on a concert to preach compassion and aid for an African famine and see a global audience raise millions of dollars to help strangers on the other side of the planet. Both messages would be at least rather odd to the citizens of ancient Rome or Athens, but they are perfectly normal to us; so much so that we struggle to articulate why.

https://historyforatheists.com/2020/...land-dominion/

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is it easier? I'd think there is a lot of anxiety around making sure you follow a bunch of arbitrary and inconsistent rules, lest you be damned for eternity. That sounds downright stressful to me, and I'd suspect it is a reason why they so desperate force their own views on society.

It was easier for me anyway. I didn't have to worry about if something was the right thing to do or not, I knew it was right.

Now I have to actually worry about it. Plus it's harder to do the right thing because it's right, that's a lot more vague motivation vs eternal suffering.

At least for me, maybe because I was raised in that.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

There's certainly less existential dread believing that you'll exist forever vs facing your own mortality and that the universe will continue without you forever.

It's also a lot easier to just follow a set of right vs wrong rules that someone said you have to follow or suffer eternally vs having to figure it out for yourself and do it because it's right (and not to avoid eternal damnation).

IDK, photon. I think your perspective of eternity is absolutely tainted by your religious upbringing. The thought of existing forever - and the quality of that eternal, infinite existence being completely dependent on how I conduct myself in my 75 years on earth - sounds like a great premise for a horror movie. It's a terrifying thought. Why would anybody want to live forever? Imagine 17 million years from now still "paying" for that time you were 23 and sinned in some way like by - IDK - being envious of someone. Or being gluttonous at an all-you-can-eat buffet. I don't get how that's appealing or desirable.

I'm way more at peace with the idea of just going to sleep one day and not waking up. A lifespan sounds very nice and reasonable to me. No dread whatsoever is associated with that in my mind and I can't relate to even wanting to live forever. And I can't relate to wanting to live forever knowing a single person I care about is living forever in poor conditions because of some "sinful" mistake they made 14 billion years ago when we lived on that place called Earth for a blink of time. Living forever sounds fataing awful.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by blankall

No doubt. That's an awful experience. Still a minority of people who are religious get abused. Lots of people who aren't religious get abused too.

Once again, the solution here is just to enforce laws. Giving members of a religious organization a pass on being criminally responsible, merely because they are members of a religious organization, is absurd. Enforcement of laws would also include going after people who are adding and abiding the perpetrators by, for example, covering up their crimes or putting them in situations where they are likely to continue committing crimes.

Depends on your definition of abuse. Indoctrination of children at ages far to young to understand is abuse.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cliff is just here to provide balance, man. It's OK to participate in an organization that does horrible things, so long as you come out the other side happy.

This quote from atheist blogger who reviewed the Holland book seems appropriate.

One of the things that often startles me about the way most anti-theist activists speak or write about Christianity is their almost visceral emotionalism. I happen to be a person raised a Christian who abandoned any faith pretty readily in my late teens and who lives in a highly secular country in a largely post-Christian society. On occasion certain Christians, particularly some prelates or politicians, will annoy me with a particularly stupid statement or action, but on the whole I can regard Christianity as I regard any faith – something that other people do that interests me largely as a historical phenomenon.

Many of those who are the focus of this blog, however, cannot seem to get Christianity out of their systems. A large number of them are, like me, ex-Christians, but ones who seem still mentally entangled in their former faith. Never able to emerge from a kind of juvenile angry apostasy, they seem impelled to strike out at it at every turn. They have to constantly remind others – and, it seems, themselves – of its manifest stupidity and wickedness.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by photon

There's certainly less existential dread believing that you'll exist forever vs facing your own mortality and that the universe will continue without you forever.

Wow, I couldn’t feel more strongly opposite to this comment. Eternal existence? Downright terrifying.

I’d have a better chance joining a clubhouse that promised me that if I’m good I’ll die when I die. Otherwise I’ll live on in some way forever. Sign me up.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think it's that much of stretch. Religious people are probably more likely to have family orientated lives and less likely to be alcoholics or use drugs. They're probably also more likely to settle into a family orientated lifestyle earlier, which means spending less money on doing fewer high risk activities into their late 20s and thirties.

A study that reviewed 1000 obituaries. Sounds completely legitimate....Science!

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This quote from atheist blogger who reviewed the Holland book seems appropriate.

lol, how is this blogger some authority on anything in you mind?

I do get angry at religion - as we all should.

It's a corrupting influence on our politics.

People to this day mutilate their infant children's genitals because of it.

It can be patriarchal, homophobic, racist, etc.

It takes terrible advantage of tax loopholes.

It protects criminals within its organization from consequences.

It lies, lies, lies. It spreads misinformation. It tricks people. It steals from people to fund endeavors that work against people that don't believe the same things it believes.

It sets up an us versus them dynamic in society that creates an "other" entirely based on lies and false premises.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, photon. I think your perspective of eternity is absolutely tainted by your religious upbringing. The thought of existing forever - and the quality of that eternal, infinite existence being completely dependent on how I conduct myself in my 75 years on earth - sounds like a great premise for a horror movie. It's a terrifying thought. Why would anybody want to live forever? Imagine 17 million years from now still "paying" for that time you were 23 and sinned in some way like by - IDK - being envious of someone. Or being gluttonous at an all-you-can-eat buffet. I don't get how that's appealing or desirable.

Yeah, aside from the obvious immorality of an infinite punishment for a finite crime my perspective probably is skewed by my upbringing.

The less existential dread assumes that one is going to the non-eternal suffering place, if I thought I was going to get the infinite punishment for being overweight that would definitely be a lot more existential dread than facing my own mortality.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm way more at peace with the idea of just going to sleep one day and not waking up. A lifespan sounds very nice and reasonable to me. No dread whatsoever is associated with that in my mind and I can't relate to even wanting to live forever.

At the reasoning level in my brain I agree. My emotions haven't caught up yet though, maybe they never will.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by photon

At the reasoning level in my brain I agree. My emotions haven't caught up yet though, maybe they never will.

I appreciate the insight.

Maybe if I thought I was more awesome I'd want to live forever, but I think I'll have had my fill of Sliver by the next 30 or 40 years hah.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Wow, I couldn’t feel more strongly opposite to this comment. Eternal existence? Downright terrifying.

There's always something new to learn and experience.

So maybe not infinite.. but long enough that I could earn a degree in every field of study.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Your first example isn't a voluntary thing, and people can vote for different governments. If I don't like how the Red Cross operates, I can donate to other institutions. Honestly it sounds like you are saying people paying money ot an organization, and attending it have no culpability,, and I think that's a pretty blinders way to view something. If propel stop going, and stop funding the church, it will collapse, and then they can't commit harm and cover it up. It's pretty basic stuff.

As for the overlooking the positives, that's like saying a murdered should go free because he helped an old lady across the street. It's ridiculous. They can do good without doing harm.

I am saying go to another church. I do know that not all religions are bad, and if it is the protestants, then fine. Join that church. DO SOMETIHNG! Take personal responsibility for or the sins of the institution you fund.

I wasn't attempting to blanket all religions as bad as Catholics, that was just the first post link. I'm sure many are worse. We can the sins of Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, or Satanism...but it's my opinion that essentially they all do more harm than good to society.

That's not how it works though. Religion isn't as ubiquitous or different as you're making it out to be. At least hold onto the stance of indoctrination before you suggest the church changing aspect.

It's more like fanboys. Even within the religious communities as well as within churches, there's all sorts of constant friction. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism does not have different denominations. Changing churches means nothing based on your example of the tithes there.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sorry, just need to pull this out...you don't actually believe that money gets all redistributed to help people, do you?

That's not the wording I used. I used the terminology that is closest tied to the audit of church financial statements and the internal terminology they use. "Redistribute where there is need is terminology that ties with accounting that is for "unrestricted contributions". It can be used for admin, facility operations, food baskets for those in need, outreach, whatever. Churches are supposed to be mini communities. It does not need to match your definition of "where there is need". It's also not my definition. I'm just clarifying.

This vs what is considered a "restricted contribution". Where someone donates specifically for "building a new church building/missions trip/children's program etc." and those funds legally must be shown to have been spent on those things, otherwise it is a violation of legal and accounting rules and could be considered a misappropriation of assets and whatnot.

I have done assurance engagements including audits on a variety of NFP including multiple churches in the past. I don't really do them anymore. I've had to do extensive work on clarifying/bridging religious and accounting/legal/technical jargon on many occasions. So believe me when I say I totally understand your stance, but not the realities of what you're claiming. There's objectively valid ways to trash the church and what you're suggesting is not IMO objectively valid. It's subjective, misinformed and on occasion I know you're cutting corners on ensuring truth.

I've spent enough time going at some NFP boards in the past from a legal and accounting perspective, so it's not like I the type to aimlessly defend someone not worth defending. I literally watched as someone who you could consider as "management" in an organization further continue legal and social pursuits against a sexual interference type case that everyone was trying to sweep under the rug. He got sued and injunctioned into oblivion. Religion stripped away, there was no legal recourse to "do the right thing". The more I poked into it, the more I realized that legally, this was the way. Forget religion for a second, it's just powerful people with money getting away with #### they shouldn't be able to get away with because they have more resources to navigate the legal system or (unproven) influence decisions outside of the scenario to get to the point of a favorable ruling/outcome in their favor.

That's when I decided to step away from all of that. But believe me, it's a "special project" of mine that with the right group of professionals, I'd want to help ensure that completely offside situations like this don't end up continued to be swept under the rug. But it's not that simple. The day some group figures out something like this, I think you've got millionaires+ in general putting a target on your back.

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's not that they're less intelligent. I used to kind of think that, but now I believe their brains have just been corrupted via indoctrination to have a blind spot that allows them to view reality through a lens that circumvents critical thought. I think the intelligent ones can be unindoctrinated if they allow themselves out of the insulated bubble that reinforces the indoctrination, but yeah, the simpleton-type ones will always believe the nonsense and maybe that allows them to sort of exist in an ignorance-is-bliss state.

The term I and others like using is that these are people who have grown up in a bubble/insulated. They wouldn't survive outside of it. This isn't always intentional, nor is it limited to religion. There are instances where someone has consumed so much kool-aid of a company/industry, they have literally been indoctrinated that they cannot survive outside of that company/industry because of how specialized they are.

But... perhaps splitting hairs, there's also a slight difference between indoctrinated and stunted mental development. Indoctrinated perhaps implies you can learn the difference and change your thoughts, but against your will, you won't end up there because of the indoctrination. Then there's bubble and insulation where someone religious fears the social awkwardness of not being around people like them. Doesn't know how to have discussions with others. If you can imagine how socially maligned certain nerds are, just think of people who are religious as nerds of some old form of belief system vs modern belief system or fantasy and everything about how weird/wrong/socially awkward they are and why they hang out with each other regularly or at conferences makes so much more sense. It's just that religion has established bigger and more structured gatherings due to it being around longer. These are people who are just living in a bubble/insulated from a different belief system. They're sorta socially stunted and not really interested in having a well balanced view of the world. Though to be fair, people with a well balanced view are rare. Plenty of atheists are not interested in a world with religion, so that's not balanced either.

I've dealt with people making $200K on topics about these bubbles before. Then I've chatted with them relating to non-religious and religious topics. It's silly, but then you realize how rife it is. That's perhaps a main reason why many people in other provinces consider Albertans rednecks.

Me, I hold closely to my heart that Canada is a cultural mosaic. I'll defend the the fact that one square is black and one square is white or whatever other colors assuming they stay in their square and adds to the bigger picture. Unfairly tearing down religious or non-religious groups isn't beneficial to all. That is my stance. That typically means I'm a lightning rod for criticisms and I have to defend all sorts of opinions I don't necessarily believe in to sort out objective and subjective errors on both sides. I've accepted that challenge relating to that.

Just as there is no superfood where you can consume solely that and be healthy (balance is required and you can choose what ratios to go with) there is no super belief. Religion has been around for so long that many base beliefs will sooner or later be shown to have a history that intertwined with religion. As much as I have issues with religion, censoring or writing it out of history IMO does more harm than good. I plan on teaching my kids the full story including exemplary examples on both sides of the opinion. My only insistence is that my kids listen to both sides with an open mind. Then I let my kids decide which direction they want to go.

If you anti-religious guys want to use "fantasy" to define religion, that's fine. I have no problem with that. Part of what I am saying I will teach my children that fantasy and let them themselves choose if they want Christianity or Starwars/Star Trek or Harry Potter as the fantasy portion that takes up some of their free time. Religion and anti-religion must figure out how to coexist to move to the next point onwards IMO. For me, that requires a significant amount of respect. Respectfully disagreement, letting each side do their thing, but also have healthy and regular engagement to try and improve one another to push forward. That is my ethos and one I will share with my family and friends and others. Respectfully understanding all sides to a deep enough level to determine what to stop, start and continue and whether to continue as is or create a new concept to push forward.

[Monahammer]

The most troubling effect about extolling an after life, IMO, is that it reduces the necessary importance of enjoying and living the only real life we can all tangibly agree exists (minus people enthralled with quantum mechanics).

This was a tool used to convince peasants that their lives of toil and servitude were worth it. The fact that it's still being employed when we live in an age of unrivaled abundance to encourage general penance and asceticism among the masses while the privileged few enjoy is disgusting.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Depends on your definition of abuse. Indoctrination of children at ages far to young to understand is abuse.

And no one who is non-religious has ever done anything while raising their children that is non-optimal.

I'm not religious myself, but will defend other people's decision to be. As far as children go, everyone, within limits, also has the right to raise their children the way they want. The vast majority of children in religious households aren't part of some isolated cult. Most people I know who were raised religious had just as many freedoms as anyone else. When they became adults they then made the choice to carry on with the religion or not. Some did and most didn't.