A World Without Religion

[Hojo]

How do you know cutting the foreskin off your penis dosent give it special powers? There's no way you could know. You only know what  a scientist tells you. Thats dogma. Thats the same as a religious person.

Edited October 2 by Hojo

[Spiritual Warfare]

Just now, Hojo said:

How do you know cutting the foreskin off your penis dosent give you special powers? 

Great point.

[Hojo]

@Spiritual Warfare they say it is a mark of your tribe meaning that if it happens to you you belong in that tribe whether you like it or not. Anything that happens to you can be seen as needing to have happened to you.

They cut the skin off my penis and I do not miss it as I never had it but I see it as something that happened to me on purpose by God. As a circumcised circumcision is fine I think the forskin on a penis is weird cause I have never had it.

If I had a non circumcised penis now I would not like it.a penis without looks better imo.

[Spiritual Warfare]

3 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Spiritual Warfare they say it is a mark of your tribe meaning that if it happens to you you belong in that tribe whether you like it or not. Anything that happens to you can be seen as needing to have happened to you.

They cut the skin off my penis and I do not miss it as I never had it but I see it as something that happened to me on purpose by God. As a circumcised circumcision is fine I think the forskin on a penis is weird cause I have never had it.

If I had a non circumcised penis now I would not like it.a penis without looks better imo.

I agree, it's a foolish thing that has been normalized.

[mattm33]

Chatgpt for you...

It's better than your takes at least. Maybe you should read through the responses to your "We Are Fucked" thread a few more times

Religion as a "cancer on humanity:
While many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion (such as wars, inquisitions, and discrimination), it is an oversimplification to label all religion as purely harmful. Religion has also inspired countless acts of compassion, charity, social justice, and community building. Organizations like churches, mosques, and temples often provide social services, help the poor, and offer a sense of community, belonging, and purpose. Historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa were deeply motivated by their faith in their pursuit of justice, peace, and service to others.

Intellectual dishonesty, prejudice, misogyny, homophobia, death, and fear:
It’s undeniable that some religious institutions have been vehicles for prejudice and discrimination, particularly regarding women's rights and LGBTQ+ issues. However, many religious movements are also at the forefront of promoting equality and social change. Progressive interpretations of religious texts challenge these injustices, and many religious communities work toward inclusivity. In many instances, it's the misuse or misinterpretation of religion for political or social power that leads to harm, rather than the core spiritual teachings.

Taxing religious organizations:
This argument often arises from concerns that some religious organizations abuse tax exemptions. While there may be cases of financial misuse, many religious institutions genuinely use their funds for charitable activities. The question of taxation should focus on transparency and accountability rather than blanket assumptions of wrongdoing.

Religion in schools:
In secular societies, it’s generally agreed that religious indoctrination has no place in public education. However, teaching about religion—its history, diversity, and influence on cultures and societies—can be essential for developing a well-rounded understanding of the world. Studying religion academically fosters critical thinking and tolerance, rather than promoting any single belief system.

Children and religious indoctrination:
Protecting children from harmful practices is important, but labeling all religious upbringing as harmful overlooks the fact that many children raised in religious families grow up to be healthy, compassionate, and well-adjusted individuals. Encouraging critical thinking and offering exposure to diverse worldviews, including secular perspectives, is key. A total prohibition against religious exposure could be seen as an overreach.

Religious circumcision:
The topic of circumcision, whether for religious or cultural reasons, is indeed controversial. Ethical discussions should be had about the practice, especially with respect to bodily autonomy. But it’s important to note that circumcision practices vary widely across religions and cultures, and many who practice them do so with deep respect for tradition and identity. Instead of dismissing them outright, respectful dialogue and public health considerations should guide any policy changes.

Religious garments:
The critique about face-covering garments, such as the burqa, raises important questions about individual freedom and societal norms. However, for many, wearing religious garments is an expression of personal faith and identity, not a sign of oppression. Balancing security concerns with the right to religious expression requires nuance and understanding of the cultural significance behind these garments.

Religion as belief in a “fairy in the sky”:
Reducing religious belief to a simplistic caricature (e.g., a fairy in the sky) overlooks the complexity and depth of theological thought. For millions, religion addresses existential questions and provides ethical frameworks that help guide their lives. Dismissing religion in such terms alienates those who find meaning and value in their faith and ignores the role that spirituality plays in the human experience.

Science vs. religion:
Science and religion need not be in conflict. Many religious believers embrace scientific discoveries and incorporate them into their worldview. The idea that science is still in its infancy, particularly in understanding consciousness, is true. However, science and religion serve different roles: science explains the “how” of the universe, while religion often addresses the “why,” focusing on meaning, morality, and purpose. Both domains have their limitations, but they can complement rather than contradict each other.

Vedic knowledge vs. Western religions:
The statement promotes Vedic knowledge as superior to other religions. While the Vedas offer rich spiritual insights, they, like other ancient texts, can be interpreted in different ways. Suggesting one spiritual tradition holds all the answers risks falling into the same absolutist thinking that the critique of religion opposes. Just as with any tradition, it’s essential to approach the Vedas critically, appreciating their wisdom while also considering modern ethical and scientific understandings.

Conclusion:

While this statement raises important concerns about the harmful aspects of religion, it paints religion with too broad a brush. There are legitimate critiques of how religion has been misused, but there are also countless examples of religion fostering positive personal and societal growth. The answer likely lies in promoting secular values alongside religious freedom, ensuring that individuals can make informed choices without being forced into belief systems, while also respecting those who find meaning and ethical guidance in their faith.

[Spiritual Warfare]

6 minutes ago, mattm33 said:

Chatgpt for you...

It's better than your takes at least. Maybe you should read through the responses to your "We Are Fucked" thread a few more times

Religion as a "cancer on humanity:
While many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion (such as wars, inquisitions, and discrimination), it is an oversimplification to label all religion as purely harmful. Religion has also inspired countless acts of compassion, charity, social justice, and community building. Organizations like churches, mosques, and temples often provide social services, help the poor, and offer a sense of community, belonging, and purpose. Historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa were deeply motivated by their faith in their pursuit of justice, peace, and service to others.

Intellectual dishonesty, prejudice, misogyny, homophobia, death, and fear:
It’s undeniable that some religious institutions have been vehicles for prejudice and discrimination, particularly regarding women's rights and LGBTQ+ issues. However, many religious movements are also at the forefront of promoting equality and social change. Progressive interpretations of religious texts challenge these injustices, and many religious communities work toward inclusivity. In many instances, it's the misuse or misinterpretation of religion for political or social power that leads to harm, rather than the core spiritual teachings.

Taxing religious organizations:
This argument often arises from concerns that some religious organizations abuse tax exemptions. While there may be cases of financial misuse, many religious institutions genuinely use their funds for charitable activities. The question of taxation should focus on transparency and accountability rather than blanket assumptions of wrongdoing.

Religion in schools:
In secular societies, it’s generally agreed that religious indoctrination has no place in public education. However, teaching about religion—its history, diversity, and influence on cultures and societies—can be essential for developing a well-rounded understanding of the world. Studying religion academically fosters critical thinking and tolerance, rather than promoting any single belief system.

Children and religious indoctrination:
Protecting children from harmful practices is important, but labeling all religious upbringing as harmful overlooks the fact that many children raised in religious families grow up to be healthy, compassionate, and well-adjusted individuals. Encouraging critical thinking and offering exposure to diverse worldviews, including secular perspectives, is key. A total prohibition against religious exposure could be seen as an overreach.

Religious circumcision:
The topic of circumcision, whether for religious or cultural reasons, is indeed controversial. Ethical discussions should be had about the practice, especially with respect to bodily autonomy. But it’s important to note that circumcision practices vary widely across religions and cultures, and many who practice them do so with deep respect for tradition and identity. Instead of dismissing them outright, respectful dialogue and public health considerations should guide any policy changes.

Religious garments:
The critique about face-covering garments, such as the burqa, raises important questions about individual freedom and societal norms. However, for many, wearing religious garments is an expression of personal faith and identity, not a sign of oppression. Balancing security concerns with the right to religious expression requires nuance and understanding of the cultural significance behind these garments.

Religion as belief in a “fairy in the sky”:
Reducing religious belief to a simplistic caricature (e.g., a fairy in the sky) overlooks the complexity and depth of theological thought. For millions, religion addresses existential questions and provides ethical frameworks that help guide their lives. Dismissing religion in such terms alienates those who find meaning and value in their faith and ignores the role that spirituality plays in the human experience.

Science vs. religion:
Science and religion need not be in conflict. Many religious believers embrace scientific discoveries and incorporate them into their worldview. The idea that science is still in its infancy, particularly in understanding consciousness, is true. However, science and religion serve different roles: science explains the “how” of the universe, while religion often addresses the “why,” focusing on meaning, morality, and purpose. Both domains have their limitations, but they can complement rather than contradict each other.

Vedic knowledge vs. Western religions:
The statement promotes Vedic knowledge as superior to other religions. While the Vedas offer rich spiritual insights, they, like other ancient texts, can be interpreted in different ways. Suggesting one spiritual tradition holds all the answers risks falling into the same absolutist thinking that the critique of religion opposes. Just as with any tradition, it’s essential to approach the Vedas critically, appreciating their wisdom while also considering modern ethical and scientific understandings.

Conclusion:

While this statement raises important concerns about the harmful aspects of religion, it paints religion with too broad a brush. There are legitimate critiques of how religion has been misused, but there are also countless examples of religion fostering positive personal and societal growth. The answer likely lies in promoting secular values alongside religious freedom, ensuring that individuals can make informed choices without being forced into belief systems, while also respecting those who find meaning and ethical guidance in their faith.

Thank you! 

[Nivsch]

The religion you are really against it is any thinking discipline that is taken as the real or right one above all the rest.

You are very right when you feel suffocated from this narrow thinking pattern you feel as a thing that limits you and limits the world.

Just that this problem is common to any other topic, ideology or a thinking pattern that is taken as the absolute.

Edited October 4 by Nivsch

[Rigel]

On 2024-10-02 at 11:09 AM, Spiritual Warfare said:

Yeah, you're right. I’m the crazy one who doesn't believe in fairy tales! I’m the crazy one who doesn’t believe because there’s not good evidence to support it! Yeah, you’re right; I’m the crazy one and not you.

Oh you believe in plenty of fairy tales don’t get ahead of your skis.

[Sandhu]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

The religion you are really against it is any thinking discipline that is taken as the real or right one above all the rest.

You are very right when you feel suffocated from this narrow thinking pattern you feel as a thing that limits you and limits the world.

Just that this problem is common to any other topic, ideology or a thinking pattern that is taken as the absolute.

Wow, that's an amazing insight for me. I didn't see it from that perspective before. Thank u

Edited October 4 by Sandhu

[Spiritual Warfare]

2 hours ago, Rigel said:

Oh you believe in plenty of fairy tales don’t get ahead of your skis.

False.

[Spiritual Warfare]

3 hours ago, Nivsch said:

The religion you are really against it is any thinking discipline that is taken as the real or right one above all the rest.

You are very right when you feel suffocated from this narrow thinking pattern you feel as a thing that limits you and limits the world.

Just that this problem is common to any other topic, ideology or a thinking pattern that is taken as the absolute.

Great eye-opener.

[Nivsch]

@Sandhu @Spiritual Warfare Glad to hear it helped. Thank you.

[ryandesreu]

If you were forced to be religious how would you handle it?

[Spiritual Warfare]

On 2024-10-05 at 2:02 AM, ryandesreu said:

If you were forced to be religious how would you handle it?

Not so great, how about you?

[ryandesreu]

3 hours ago, Spiritual Warfare said:

Not so great, how about you?

I think that I could maybe be happy as a Buddhist but any other religion would be difficult given my spiritual development. Then again there are many religious people in my life so in a way I wouldn't be alone. Basically everyone in my life is premodern and modern right now.

"Serenity to embrace the flow of life, Courage to harmonize with the greater whole, and Wisdom to see the oneness in all things."

[Spiritual Warfare]

3 minutes ago, ryandesreu said:

I think that I could maybe be happy as a Buddhist but any other religion would be difficult given my spiritual development. Then again there are many religious people in my life so in a way I wouldn't be alone. Basically everyone in my life is premodern and modern right now.

"Serenity to embrace the flow of life, Courage to harmonize with the greater whole, and Wisdom to see the oneness in all things."

Buddhism is great, but people argue whether it is a religion or a philosophy. I like the quote you shared. Being forced is never great because you are either convinced or you are not; it's not something you can simply switch on and off.

[Willie]

On 10/2/2024 at 10:45 AM, Spiritual Warfare said:

How to live in harmony with others?

Spiritual warfare!

Yeah, no. I get it, though. I used to think like you. Like if I could just gather all the facts and make the most comprehensive, unassailable argument against the need for religion, then people would have no choice but to end it because there’s no way to refute how unnecessary it is. Easy peasy!

Here’s the catch:

1. Feelings don’t care about facts. If the fact doesn’t feel right, it’s not a good fact. Beliefs are nice and comforting for religious people, and facts that go against those beliefs are the evil machinations of the devil. Thus, easily ignored at best and fought against with a lot of self-righteous passion at worst.

2. Feelings are valid. Always. To say otherwise would mean there’s some threshold to reach that determines whether or not a feeling is satisfactory, and that you know where that is so that you can dismiss any feelings that don’t cross the threshold. For anybody. Including yourself. Which means you’re completely honest and without bias.

Please.

So just because I’ve learned to live my life without the comfort and protection of some dumb infinite, eternal security blanket doesn’t give me the right to take it away from anyone who still needs it. That would just make me another asshole in the world.

[Spiritual Warfare]

17 hours ago, Willie said:

Yeah, no. I get it, though. I used to think like you. Like if I could just gather all the facts and make the most comprehensive, unassailable argument against the need for religion, then people would have no choice but to end it because there’s no way to refute how unnecessary it is. Easy peasy!

Here’s the catch:

1. Feelings don’t care about facts. If the fact doesn’t feel right, it’s not a good fact. Beliefs are nice and comforting for religious people, and facts that go against those beliefs are the evil machinations of the devil. Thus, easily ignored at best and fought against with a lot of self-righteous passion at worst.

2. Feelings are valid. Always. To say otherwise would mean there’s some threshold to reach that determines whether or not a feeling is satisfactory, and that you know where that is so that you can dismiss any feelings that don’t cross the threshold. For anybody. Including yourself. Which means you’re completely honest and without bias.

Please.

So just because I’ve learned to live my life without the comfort and protection of some dumb infinite, eternal security blanket doesn’t give me the right to take it away from anyone who still needs it. That would just make me another asshole in the world.

Feelings aren't always valid, they can deceive us and lead to poor decisions. However, if a religious person needs their faith and book to be moral, I think it's good they have it. But most people can manage without one. That's why we need to teach people to ask questions, not blindly follow orders. Even if someone has been deeply influenced by their beliefs, they should still admit they don’t hold the ultimate truth, and that others with different beliefs aren’t necessarily wrong.

The issue is, many can't think outside their belief system. That’s why those of us who can must help them, because there's a problem when people can't consider other perspectives or question their own. It’s dangerous, especially since these individuals vote and impact society. They can also harm themselves when their beliefs don’t align with reality.

You say it's not your place to take away someone’s 'infinite, eternal security blanket.' I get that. But what if that blanket is being used to justify actions that harm others or limit their rights? Should we still let them cling to it if it’s causing damage, or is there a point where we have to challenge their beliefs for the greater good?