Whats the purpose of religion and do we need it?

I don't know anymore if Christianity is true or not, but my answer to the last question is that the net effect of it is not worth it if it is not true. I'm not saying any specific one is wrong for sure because I just don't know, but basing your worldview and morals on a false statement can create closed-mindedness that hinders society and possibly keeps people under worse living conditions for longer, even if the believers are generally "better" people. The Catholic Church vs. early science is a prime example of this.

I agree believing in falsehood will do more damage than good. That's why when any church even the Catholic church stops listening to God and just insists on its own understanding it can have dire consequences.

Except that wordlview and morality was not just shaped, but sired by religion, and the Catholic Church, despite some of its rather negative history, used to be the sole sponsor of science in Europe. In fact, if it was for some Irish monks hiding out in a tiny windswept isle, you would even be able to read and write today, as that almost disappeared a thousand years ago, and rule would have been by rampaging barbarian hordes.

What worldview? That religions can cause closed-mindedness because you already *know* something is wrong without thinking about it? The Catholic Church has taken many sides in the past on many topics, but they are not the only example. Most Muslims believe women should always obey their husbands. Most Abrahamic religions believe gay marriage is wrong. Orthodox Jews still eat according to the law of Moses. Pagan religions explained all sorts of phenomena with "the gods." A heart attack looks like you got struck down for doing something wrong, so why investigate what happened? If you believe these religions are true, there is no reason to question your beliefs about these issues. If they are wrong, though, then the beliefs can cause more harm than good in the long run.

The one referred to, namely, Europe/the West.
Wasn't exactly under the impression that we were discussing that of the Ainu or Palau.

I'm still confused at what your original reply meant. What worldview is pushed by the Catholic Church?

You're kidding me, right? It's only the world's largest religion, look it up if you've not heard yet.

Good grief, wasting my time on rhetorical nonsense aimed at not even making a point.

Like I honestly don't know what your first comment meant

what did I say that was based on the Catholic churches teaching

*church's and *?

Mario Kart calls lol

Read. YOUR. first. comment.

I don't think the Catholic Church says, "basing your worldview and morals on a false statement can create closed-mindedness that hinders society and possibly keeps people under worse living conditions."

And that includes the Catholic church, hence my first example. Most religions end up hindering society.

The thing I find most irksome about Christianity is how it teaches people that they are flawed, weak and prone to screwing up. Moreover, the solution is to admit that you're flawed, weak, prone to screwing up, and ask for forgiveness whenever you commit an oopsie.

This robs people of a degree of agency. It gives them an expectation to live down to. It validates the worst instead of aspiring to be better. What's the incentive for self-improvement? What's to motivate someone to even try to be better, when all they have to do is acknowledge they were made weak, say "sorry" and continue about their flawed existence?

From a marketing standpoint, this is a great way for Christianity to continue to sell itself. But as a service to humanity? Teaching people that they can't stand on their own feet is not a service. It's a way to keep them dependent.

You disagree that we're sometimes weak, flawed and sometimes screw up?

I guess this goes back to our discussion on humility, we want people to have a healthy balanced opinion of themselves. All sin is basically pride, fulfilling your own desires at the expense of others.

Do you have a specific example of how this makes people lower their standards and never strive to do better?
Jesus instructed us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. That sounds like a tall order to me. And we look to the saints as examples of people who were far from satisfied with the status quo.

Fair point. There's certainly a distinction to be made between doctrine and what people do with it. The only example I can cite from the source of religion being leveraged to enable shitty behavior is a disfellowshipped Jehova's Witness who left the church not because her husband repeatedly cheated on her, but because when she reported it to the church authorities, she was basically told "well, he denies it, so we have to take him at his word. The truth is between him and god. Now either suck on it or kiss your family, friends and everyone you ever knew goodbye forever." He was a prominent figure in her congregation, or whatever that sect calls them, so she basically said "f**k this, these people are vile" and bounced. She's now married to my best friend's brother.

My point is that when I made mistakes as a wee lad, the emphasis was on what to learn in order to avoid making a similar mistake in the future. Not "come my child, sit in this booth, confess, say hail mary X times and ye shall be absolved." (Shit, back when indulgence was still allowed, the rich could essentially open a tab and sin to their hearts' content with the church's blessing!)

I'm sure it's not the intent of the church to enable sinful behavior, but as long as they break the world down into "those who are saved" and "those who are damned", the saved group can basically do whatever tf they want short of renouncing their faith, and they're still good to go. It's not a horrible system, but with being saved as the highest rung of the ladder, it leaves nothing further towards which to aspire. If anything it gives them a haughty vantage point from which to look down their noses at everyone who hasn't already drunk the kool-aid.

Jehovah's witness are a freaky cult that has the practice of disfellowshipping/shunning members who so much as vote or get a blood transfusion. Don't even get me started on everything wrong with that group that claims to be Christians.

The selling of indulgences was an abuse that happened centuries ago by heretical members of the Catholic clergy.

I can explain how the Sacrament of confession/ reconciliation works if you'd like me to, it seems you don't really get it.

And no we don't encourage sin because you can just confess it, quite the opposite in fact. Most people say we don't allow enough sinning, lol.

What you describe is more of the "once saved always saved" mentality of many protestant churches that claim, Jesus paid the debt eat drink and be merry. Our belief is, personal salvation is a daily effort.

Great discussion! I'm happy to answer any questions about the Catholic Church here or in my ItsACatholicThing stream. 😊

I always enjoy discourse with you Kate. You're literally the first of many dozens of devout Christians I've encountered who actually welcomes divergent viewpoints. You seem to actively thrive off them. It's as though each critique offers an opportinity to demonstrate the depth of your faith, while also providing a wholesome forum through which to educate others. You're not pushy, arrogant or condescending, and you have an incredible tolerance for assholes like me who can't restrain their trash talk. Don't sell yourself short. Modesty is fine, but false modesty is debatable. Whatever, I don't want to harp on the matter.

I appreciate your kind words to me but I think you're the one selling yourself short here. You've been anything but what you describe yourself, actually you're quite delightful to converse with. I enjoy sharing my beliefs to anyone who will listen. If it means clearing up misconceptions, good, if it leads to more understanding and unity, better.

I'm a mixed bag. I mean, most things are, but I'm mostly chinchilla fur and rusty thumbtacks.

If all my forays into online interaction have taught me anything, it's that I work best in small doses...that said, it's always pleasant to hear that someone finds my antics and contributions a value-add. I'm comfortable being me, but positive feedback reminds me that I'm not as isolated as I tend to think.

That's quite a dichotomy but I'll take it 😊 I'm probably best taken in small doses as well.

Yes, but I'd be sporting the red getup Sean Connery wore in Zardoz.

No one has caught thay my abbreviation is StRanger. Stranger in a strange land...

Oh I like that clever twist in your name. Certainly more original than mine, lol.

When inspiration doesn't come on its own, I puruse rhyming dictionaries. I think great nails it. It's broadly applicable, and you seem like a keen illustration of someone living their best life. (Or at least actively devoted to such.) At the very least, you're setting a great example!

I've been racking my brains trying to figure out who the patron saint of Rangers is well it's Saint Andrew

Neat! It's irritating that "st" can denote both saint and street, although doctors have the same problem and still seem to avoid getting confused with drives.

I like to cycle through names from time to time. I used to be Otto_E_Rotic. Next I'm thinking I'll go with Sam_Mich, or maybe Lance_D_Boyle.

Still waiting to find a topper for Adolph_Oliver_Bush. Anagrams are another fun way to fxck with language. Did you know that Black Lives Matter is an anagram of Sick Marvel Battle? Kinda tripped out when I stumbled upon that one.

I confess that my understanding of the many different Christian denominations is rather superficial, and I am often guilty of lumping them all together. As far as I'm concerned they're all equally valid. It's certainly not my place to litigate what a given sect adheres to any more than it is a given individual. I've always wondered how the various demonimations view each other. Is there a general consensus that they're all on the same path, or are some regarded by mainstream Christianity as false faiths? I've heard Mormonism referred to as a cult, and you made it plain how Catholicism views Jehovahs Witnesses. I've never had occasion to solicit an insider's opinion. (I can totally take this to the other stream if that's more appropriate.)

I don't speak for all Catholics I'm just one but I have been studying the JW for several years now having often gotten into lively discussions with them as they go about their door to door mission wherever I'm living at the time. I find they only go so far in defending what they believe preferring to just have people blindly accept and join their church. Discussions are often cut short if they encounter disagreement much to my disappointment since as you've noticed, I have a passion for dialogue. I've never met an unkind JW, but the coersion and manipulation they have to endure for their entire life from childhood to marriage (usually arranged by the elders so one spouse can spy on and report on the other) they are often childless because that would take them away from their door to door mission. They have to log in so many hours and hand out pamphlets or risk fines or banishment. Some can't even hold full time jobs becuase the mission comes first. Being disfellowshiped is worse than death, it often leads to suicide since your own family cannot even talk to you.

I'm sure you'll find dirt on any religion, but what my standard is for determining if the claims match the true intent of the church in question is: are the people living according to the beliefs, traditions and standards set forth by their church or are they the outliers and the true believers speak out to correct them. Priests have abused children, that is a fact but it is a very low percentage of all the good priests in the world and no one is holding the bad ones up as the standard. A good Jehovas Witness will serve the elders all their life, will shun family members who step out of line and obey without question even if it means never participating in their rights as citizens like vote. So what does the religion actually teach and who are the true followers is how I approach other faiths.

I would also add whether a faith serves the people who follow it. Shunning family (as an example) is objectively not a service.

Incidentally, and I know it's not a religion per se, Buddhism at its core is inherently sociopathic. Attachment is the root of suffering, so avoid attachment. To anything. Friends, family, literally anything. Buddhist monks and nuns sit in a small room by themselves praying for most of the day. Way to shit on the social nature of what it means to be human. Smh

-I'll reference the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints because I am familiar with their teaching, but I am not here to preach that it is true.-

"What's to motivate someone to even try to be better, when all they have to do is acknowledge they were made weak, say "sorry" and continue about their flawed existence?" a religion that doesn't do this is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church as many know them. They teach instead that we are weak, but repentance is forsaking sin and weakness and working to become stronger and better. They consider self-improvement to be the most important step toward godhood.

Isn't that true tho

Personally I like the Calvinist approach better: our fates after death are determined even before we're born, and we just act virtuous in life to demonstrate that we had been chosen all along! Because only a damned soul would say "cool, my actions in life have no effect on my fate in the hereafter, so I can do whatever I want with no ramifications on my afterlife!" It's one of the more subtle mind-fxcks I've seen a religion pull on its followers, and it seems to work pretty effectively.

Um idk, it could make the world better because people would believe, if it were one religion it would be even better

Hmmm. A one world religion? Which one do you think it should be?

Yeah so then everyone has the same beliefs, and bidk

Religious people can do good things, I don't believe religion itself can

Religion is supposed to be an expression of a spiritual reality, truth, or experience. So it is pretty nonexistent without people so in a way you're correct. A church, a statue, prayer book, ritual doesn't do good in itself, the good comes from the intent of the person engaging in it. I referenced this quote to someone else. What do you make of it?

My personal opinion is that it sounds like a "deepity", a statement which looks profound on the surface but doesn't actually have any relevance or truth behind it.

Religion can motivate people to do good things, but it can also motivate people to do bad things. But people can be motivated to do good and bad things without religion, so is it really necessary?

Had to look up deepity becuase I thought you made that up 😂 trust me Anthony deMello is anything but. Lol

Those quotes aren't deepity, just word salad

What's the difference, if something has no meaning then it must be a word salad according to you

A deepity is a statement that attempts to sound profound but isn't. Word salad is just a jumbled mess of jargon with no substance.

Don't fall for that one.

Deepity, lol. thats a new one. No relevance or truth how? You disagree with the quote?

But who defines what good and bad are? Granted definitions can change depending on religion but what do you base basic morality off of if you have no religion?

Built-in moral compass. Not everyone has one, but the majority do. Kind of hard to be a social species if you literally give no fxcks about anyone but yourself.

Predisposition to compassion is likely a trait that was naturally selected for, since collaboration is more likely to get a group through hard times than a group of individuals sabotaging each other for short-term personal gain.

"No relevance or truth how? You disagree with the quote?"

He seems to be saying that religion guides us toward some mystery just over the horizon, but I don't see evidence that such a mystery exists. Religion at its core is something humans use to try to better understand the world around them and their place in the world. But I don't think it comes to any correct conclusions.

"But who defines what good and bad are?"

We do. All of us, as individuals, and as groups

"what do you base basic morality off of if you have no religion?"

Human well-being and flourishing

I like that word

Religion can help people try to be better when have someone believing im them

Ideally people would choose to do good without having to belong to a church but then who is going to define "good"?

I don't have any empirical evidence to cite, but I feel like most people (sociopaths excluded) have a pretty solid innate awareness of good vs not good behavior.

Could be called a conscience perhaps?

Yes! This is also why I'd be reluctant to hand moral decisions to AI.

Wow. Great comments. Very informed gentleman or ladies as the case may be.
Thanks for increasing my knowledge and understanding.

I'm male, but I identify as a 280lb slab of reluctantly sentient meat.

I identify as a Wal-Mart bag

How's that? Thin-skinned and full of shit?

Sorry, sorry, I don't mean that, I just couldn't resist. I don't know you but I'm sure you're a lovely person. Thin-skinned shit bags don't visit this stream! 🙏

Its fine, but its going to rare insults tho

👌

“Good is not a thing you are. It's a thing you do.” ― G. Willow Wilson, Ms. Marvel (2014-2015) #5

"Are there natural human laws"

The term "natural human laws" is throwing me off. What does that mean?

"that are pretty much the standard through history and culture, you would consider those relative to individuals or absolute?"

I would consider them subjective but extremely common. That goes back to my earlier point that even if they are subjective, if enough people agree on them you can have a society that is pretty stable.

"And thanks, it's been a rough few days. I think he's finally on the mend"

That's good. You're welcome.

Laws of nature are inherent in nature to function correctly, like gravity, likewise humans need to follow laws that come naturally to being a human otherwise the species would cease to exist.

Natural law could be instinct in animals. Human natural law is instinct combined with reason.

"good" is subjective, but if enough people in a group agree on a definition then they can use that as their standard

"good" is subjective, but if enough people in a group agree on a definition then they can use that as their standard"

Hmm, so what percentage of people agreeing would make a subjective "good" right, even if the other percentage thought it wrong?

👆🏽Truth👆🏽

So what's your standard for morality?

No upvote for Buck? *sad noises*

Nope

He didn't attack you in his comments here or break any TOS. Why can you complain when I don't upvote even though we might not agree but you don't upvote others you don't agree with. Seems petty to me. But whatever floats your boat.

He didn't attack me on this meme but he does have a history of attacking me pretty viciously, and as a result I don't respect him the way I respect you

Wasn't that account banned from posting comments for doing nothing but that?
Did that restriction get lifted, because it is my understanding he has been going through a series of alts as they themselves have been totally banned (as in deleted) since...

When the man who whines every time he's not upvoted refuses to upvote another for no reason ;) is there a secret law somewhere that Buck is not to be upvoted? Since we're on the subject of laws.

"for no reason"

Oh, there is defintely a reason

imgflip.com/i/6uqwmm#com21381370

Exhibit A

Don’t worry. I know OM would never give me an upvote. That’s why I ALWAYS downvote every single comment and meme OM makes, even on those rare occasions when I actually agree with it.

Based spite. I like that. Petty, sure, but it does show commitment.

Not the will of the masses, especially since they are usually greedy and self-absorbed.

How about your standard?

Truth, following the bandwagon hasn't really worked out for anyone.

My standard is well-being

The ‘well-being’ of the many who may not care about the ‘well-being’ of the few?

The well-being of everyone, or at least as many people as possible

“The well-being of everyone, or at least as many people as possible”

The population of the Axis countries was close to 260 million during WWII.

Does that mean they were right since the well-being of 260 million is more important than the well-being than the far lesser population of Jews?

This is where the problem with the “will of the masses” becomes problematic.

"The population of the Axis countries was close to 260 million during WWII.

Does that mean they were right since the well-being of 260 million is more important than the well-being than the far lesser population of Jews?"

No, because there was no legitimate reason to kill them

"This is where the problem with the “will of the masses” becomes problematic."

I didn't advocate for the will of the masses

The well-being of “as many people as possible” IS the will of the masses.

Well-being and will aren't the same thing

Good call. I knew there was a reason Machiavelli is invoked as a cautionary tale rather than a how-to guide.

This missed the mark. To make up for it, here's a considerably more insightful if equally irrelevant reference.

It's a slippery slope to claim absolutes like morality, truth and natural law are relative, that would mean 8 billion definitions for nearly everything that makes our species stand out from other animals

"It's a slippery slope to claim absolutes like morality, truth and natural law are relative"

How do you know morality is absolute?

How do you know it's not? Lol. Yes lazy response but I have a sick kid at home so I'm going to let you defend your side first.

As I hope he feels better

Thanks double ear infections are no fun

I beyr

"How do you know it's not?"

I don't. But no one has yet demonstrated that it is.

I hope your kid gets better :o

Are there natural human laws such as don't steal, don't kill other people (don't forget to upvote Octavia;) that are pretty much the standard through history and culture, you would consider those relative to individuals or absolute? with some very extremely rare exceptions (like killing a person out of self defense)

And thanks, it's been a rough few days. I think he's finally on the mend

You're right, but absolutism is a point, whereas relativity is an entire spectrum. As a single example, my moral compass allows me to sympathize with Jean Valjean without upending my entire schema.

Slippery slope or not, I'll take a little flexibility over any system that allows absolutely none.

Obviously there are cases where a large group of people thought that something was right even though it hurt people, but other groups of people from the outside looking in could point out how it was hurtful.

I'm not saying every group of people is going to get it right all the time. That's why we should use standards like well-being and human flourishing to try to figure out the best rules for a society.

"But what if one group considers it to be in their best interest to exterminate another group?"

Then I would point out that it obviously doesn't contribute to the flourishing of the people they want to exterminate, so that would be immoral.

"well-being and human flourishing"

Sounds pretty subjective to me. Maybe I'm not feeling I'm flourishing by being stuck at home with 4 kids so what if i get a group of friends to agree with me and we throw the kids in the river? Is it now morally acceptable?

"Sounds pretty subjective to me"

Matt Dillahunty explains it very well. He compares it to chess. The rules of chess are subjective. They were made up by humans. But certain moves are objectively better or worse when it comes to the goal of winning the game.

Making well-being the basis for morality is subjective, but well-being itself is objective because we exist in a physical universe with real consequences for our actions. Certain things are objectively harmful to a person and other things are objectively beneficial.

"Maybe I'm not feeling I'm flourishing by being stuck at home with 4 kids so what if i get a group of friends to agree with me and we throw the kids in the river? Is it now morally acceptable?"

I would say it is not morally acceptable, because you've just caused serious harm to four people, which obviously impacts their well-being.

I wouldn't say chess rules are subjective, I wouldn't be playing chess if I decided that my knight can go diagonal or I just started moving my opponents pieces for him or decided to use a candyland board instead.

If I decided those 4 individuals were not people based on developmental age or location then I can decide if them continuing to live and grow was worth the negative impacts they have on my wellbeing right?

"I wouldn't say chess rules are subjective, I wouldn't be playing chess if I decided that my knight can go diagonal or I just started moving my opponents pieces for him or decided to use a candyland board instead"

All of the rules of chess are subjective, because they were created by humans. If the people who made the rules decided that a knight would go in a diagonal line, that would be how that piece moves.

When I say they're subjective, I mean they aren't determined by something outside the human mind. There's nothing in how the universe operates that says a knight can't move diagonally.

"If I decided those 4 individuals were not people based on developmental age or location then I can decide if them continuing to live and grow was worth the negative impacts they have on my wellbeing right?"

You could try to make that argument, but the vast majority of people wouldn't agree with you.

Are laws like don't kill other people subjective like chess rules? I guess this analogy really isn't convincing me.

So since the vast majority of people including scientists agree that human life begins at conception why is there such a disagreement about abortion? Liberals seem to say it's up to the woman to decide if the fetus is a person and deserves to live so why can't I as a woman decide that my 4 year old is not a person? To kill or not to kill, is that really subjective like chess rules?

What about religions that say to do good to your neighbor?

I was referring to people who (claim to) follow a religion, not to the religion itself.

Setting aside moral relativism and assuming genuine piety on the part of the religious devotee, I'm quite confident many catholic inquisitors though torturing people to death in the pursuit of forced confessions was truly good.

This, incidentally, is why my first reaction to assertions that morality derives from religion is to shake my head and laugh.

I think morality comes from God and it's instilled in each human irrespective of how they're brought up and we have a conscience to guide us but that it could be ill formed through negative life experiences. Religion is supposed to provide a moral framework based on man's experience of God and understanding of morality but man is also fallible. It's possible to have a moral religion that includes immoral participants as well as an immoral religion that has moral people who were misguided and are simply ignorant.

You've become one of my favorite catholics, Kate. I appreciate your open mindendness and tolerance. You're a true credit to the faithful.

My atf catholic is Georgie.

It's a bummer you have to settle for me being your favorite Catholic since there's so many better specimens than I out there.

You're my favorite nondenominational, non religious, nonspecific deity believing person. 😉

I am open minded and gladly listen to those who are also open minded and listen. 😊

I don't remember where this expression originated, but still recall a classmate saying it to me after a lively yet respectful discussion about spirituality back in college.

I don't know many catholics, at least that I'm aware of, and those I am aware of I don't make a habit of associating with. The sample size is statistically insignificant, so I'd be remiss to extrapolate too much from it.

I look forward to continuing banter. At the very least, the process is invaluable as I continue the struggle to reconcile my longstanding disdain for religious institutions with the demonstrably positive influence that they have in many people's lives.

"I think morality comes from God"

How could we confirm that? And what about people who worship other gods? Who's right (if anyone)?

You just basically said morality comes from a group of people shaking hands and agreeing to behave a certain way. How do you justify that knowing people can change one minute to the next, plus throw in cultural differences, location, changes through history, how can there be any consistency? At least the main world religions are consistent.

"You just basically said morality comes from a group of people shaking hands and agreeing to behave a certain way. How do you justify that knowing people can change one minute to the next, plus throw in cultural differences, location, changes through history, how can there be any consistency?"

There's not going to be complete consistency, but if the vast majority of people agree on some pretty basic things like not stealing or killing or lying, that's a good starting point and we can work on things from there.

"At least the main world religions are consistent"

They're not really consistent, they're often all over the place. Some religions support killing, some don't. Some support equality, some don't. Some support oppression, some don't.

I meant Islam teaches the same thing it has taught for thousands of years, Judaism, Catholicism, the core of each of those beliefs are consistent, I'm not comparing one religion to another

So, would the idea that backs up the venn diagram be that religious people who are inclined to do goodwill follow a religion that backs them up? If someone is going to be bad, religion won't turn them around. I would mostly agree with that, but I think ~1-5% of the overlap would be due to religion because there have been prisoners who say they "found Jesus" and really turned around. It's still not a significant portion of the overlap, though.

I totally disregarded people who are "saved" by religion, and they do exist. In those instances, there is a causal relationship between being religious and good behavior. At the very least religion served as a catalyst. And to the extent that the person's reformation derives from a sincere desire to do good instead of the inherently selfish motivations of the stick and carrot, I would acknowledge that religion had a genuinely positive affect on that person's character.

Then again, good behavior is good behavior regardless of the underlying motivation. Even a reduction in bad behavior is "good". Just ask Alex from A Clockwork Orange!

I still very much doubt a well-behaved person from the secular world is going to shop religions until they find one that fits their pre-existing values. I think the reason religion is on the decline is that fewer and fewer people are brainwashed with it when they're children and thus too young to defend against the propoganda. You can spoon feed a 2 year old anything and they'll eat it up because that's what a 2 year old's brain is wired to do. That so many people install the invisible sky father firmware into their children is one of my biggest beefs with humanity...then again, I forget how shitty most people are when left wholly to their own devices.

Meh, at the end of the day if religion proves to be a net positive in a person's life, it's a good thing, even if it only succeeds in dissuading people from being shitty out of fear that their all loving god will torture them for eternity if they are. *sigh*

I actually have to disagree with the last point. Believing an untrue religion hinders society overall by making people think some things are right or wrong when they're not. Look at people today on gay marriage, the big band, evolution, etc. Many people say a meteorite didn't kill the dinosaurs. You may be nice to your neighbor but stop life-changing science.

It warms my heart to hear you say this. This was me before I was beaten down by disappointment and lowered my expectations to the point where anyone who isn't a drooling moron or complete psychopath is basically a superhero.

I was a militant atheist for most of my youth, until I traded it for the term "anti-theist agnostic". (The distinction is basically the difference between "there is no god, reeeee!" and "I don't know what god is, but I'm pretty sure none of you assholes do either."

Then I grew to ponder, hey, if the majority of people are religious, who am I to think that my worldview deserves to supplant theirs?

Eventually (recently as a matter of fact, since I've been active in imgflip even) I came to accept that everyone is entitled to think, feel and believe whatever the go***mned hell they please. It's not my nor anyone elses' job or right to police what anyone thinks about anything, period. It follows then that I am ethically compelled not just to tolerate the beliefs of others, but revere their right to hold those beliefs. (The CONTENT of those beliefs is a wholly different matter. I reserve the right to judge the shit out of the beliefs themselves, as is any thinking person's prerogative.)

The real kicker is when I find myself in a position of celebrating a person's right to beliefs that refuse me that same courtesy. But again, holding as sacred each individual's right to freedom of thought doesn't stop me from disagreeing with (or even condemning) the content of those thoughts.

Ok, sorry if that was long-winded. Took me decades to get there so I hope a few paragraphs isn't too much to convey it all. Now regarding the harm of belief in "untrue" things...yes...I still cringe and feel a part of what remains of my soul dying every time some fxcking dipshit shrugs off climate science by saying something along the lines of "the world will only end when god decides its time." Coooool. So, can an adult in the room please grab the wheel? Jesus is doing a piss-poor job of navigating us away from our own self-made demise. That's just an example, but the list goes on, and back to the emergence of religion itself. As the proxy for all that is not yet known, religion funnels any as-of-yet unanswered questions back on itself, stymieing efforts for meaningful explanations. At best this collectively sets us back. At worst, it sets us down the wrong path entirely. But hey, it's what the people want, and this is their home too...

Oh, I don't think that people should be forced away from their religions by any means. freedom of thought and expression is extremely important to me.

Right. Religion is a concept. It only exists as such. People claiming or identifying with it are the cause.

All this that you see, America, the post WWII world - if it wasn't for Christianity, specifically British Protestantism through an American filter, we'd all still be using donkeys and living under thatched roofs burning cow chips for fuel with an average lifespan of 35, 2/3 of our kids dying before 1yr, 5'2, and 95lbs with tons suffering through perpetual famine. That's a simple fact. It wasn't an accident that America popped out of nowhere and civilized the world, it was Christian America that did.

That kid in that pic is how life was like here a mere century ago, as is still the case in some countries today but has been on the way out since Big Daddy Uncle Sam told them it isn't cool.
Your Liberalsim, your Atheism, they are not like that despite religion in the USA, but BECAUSE of it. Like it or not, believe it or not, you, me, everybody here is an Anglo-American Protestant, and it's the reason why we give a crap about anything other than ourselves simply getting by. From our work ethic, generosity, and yes, Manifest Destiny, it's why we pulled the world out of the Dark Ages.

Sure, we got plenty of dirt under our nails and still screw up a'plenty, but so does everyone else on Earth, except that used to be how things were for 4.5 billion years and no one cared as long as they survived.

Interesting points. I'm non-religious, raised by non-religious parents, and have spent most of my life inwardly weeping at how many people (many of them xtians) act like assholes while claiming hegemony over morality. To this day I still wonder if they're shitty people because they're xtians or if they're xtians because they're shitty people, and whether their religiousity had a positive or negative affect on their innate shittiness.

I also think it was xtianity that caused the dark ages, not pulled us out of it. In any case, it's been my direct observation that religion fights progress kicking and screaming, only being dragged forward when its oldest, most reactionary members die off and take their influence with them. But they're sure eager to claim credit for anything good that happens after the fact, even if they were standing in its way at the time. The idea of religion being responsible for social progress in the states when it's usually the one with its heels dug in opposing it tooth and nail is patently absurd.

Credit due for acknowledging that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Not certain the story of humanity goes back much more than 6 million years, but it's certainly true that most people just want to live their lives, the rest of the world be damned. I blame revelations for xtianity washing its hands of environmental responsibility, but rearranging deck chairs on the titanic is gratuitous at this point in any case. For my part, I'll stick to my vegetarian diet, try to mitigate my carbon footprint, by an ally to marginalized demographics and reflect empathy wherever I find it. Not because it makes any difference, not because I was guilted or bribed into it, but because I think these are good things for their own sake.

"To this day I still wonder if they're shitty people because they're xtians or if they're xtians because they're shitty people, and whether their religiousity had a positive or negative affect on their innate shittiness."

Sadly, for most, 'salvation' is nothing more than a hand stamp signifying that they get a pass because at least they know what's wrong when they do it, unlike the heathens who aren't aware that such n such is a sin therefore are damned to burn for eternity for committing it.

It was the fall of Rome that ushered in the Dark Ages, and Germanic barbarian tribes that wiped out nearly all asects of European civilization, down to writing, which was saved by a handful of Irish monks in hiding.
As ossifying as religions can be, as witnessed by its lengthy history, as with Islam in the Middle East during the heyday of the Silk Road, the Church was the sponsor of what passed for science then and the arts. Even the music chords we use were developed by church organ players. Those cathedrals weren't exactly just nailed planks of wood either, and the Catholic Church is the difference between the glorious architecture of the South and the log n mud cabins of the North. In Spain, it was the Moors, and their reign was at a time that 99% of the rest of Europe was illiterate.

4.5 billion years ago was in reference to Earth and life, not human-centric vanity, where nothing else matters prior because people have deemed themselves Godlike because frail egos need propping up somehow lest they give in to their profound lack of worth. Sure, some animals almost qualify for better treatment by their overlords because they're cute n fuzzy also, but plants are people too, in a manner of speaking, and one wonders how many more millenia will it take people in their infinite wisdom to catch up with that basic fact.
I mean, save the dolphins? What about the friggin tuna?

Dennis Leary did a great bit on dolphins vs tuna, and how we only care about saving the cute animals. Jainists believe in the sanctity of vegetable life. Not sure how they survive on rice water, but apparently they do. All life feeds on something, and almost all of that something is other life. Not much for it but to give thanks, try to dispatch the quarry quickly, waste nothing, try to be sustainable (laughs), and try not to fxck up the environment too much in the process...(well, I did say "try").

Great comment, lots of good stuff in there. I love nuanced discussion.

I was looking for his comment, but turns out I had it wrong all these years, believing it went something along the lines of ".... f**k the dolphins, what about the damned tuna?" (an ex of mine used to talk about that bit, so I had gotten it from her) but turns out he didn't, but now someone said something like that in 2019, so I made the loose reference.

I didn't know what Jains subsisted on. Someone once compared me to them when I made a ruckus about ants in a shrub we were loading up in a truck. I didn't want any lost from the rest of their colony.

I remember a passage in some book where an orphaned girl was burning ants with a magnifying glass, and decided to leave 1 alive "so it could be lonely". Although a single ant is more akin to a single nerve fiber than a separate being.

Aren't people? Just look at the comments on this (or any) site, most are regurgitaded by the numbers, no individual input or spin. They're all tribal, us vs them, and even if not, they will be cast as such by the reader.

Just because ants function as part of a society doesn't mean they aren't individual creatures. It is a natural tendency for people to look at 'the other' as devoid of individuality, especially the farther away they are percieved to be. Someone gets shot in our town, it's tragedy on the news for weeks. A bunch in the city, well, that's what those people do, thank goodness it wasn't us, we're of a different class. A massacre somewhere in Asia, might as well be an ant colony, those folks breed too much anyways and don't value life like we do. That's how folks look at things.

I'll buy that people are ants. That's not a tough sell. Their hive-mind runs circles around ours though, and they outnumber us something like a trillion to 1. We almost flatter ourselves with the comparison.

Yeah, heard that on the news the other day, the huge number.

Sorry for the delay, catching up now, but I gotta go sleep, so I shall reply tomorrow...

"It wasn't an accident that America popped out of nowhere and civilized the world, it was Christian America that did"

I agree that many Christians have done a lot of good things, but somebody doesn't have to be a Christian to do good things, and being a Christian doesn't mean someone will do good things. And I would argue that "civilizing" the world has plenty of its own baggage, especially when you consider that for some groups, they weren't given a choice in the matter.

"That kid in that pic is how life was like here a mere century ago, as is still the case in some countries today"

Yes, but that means for the first century and a half of this country that was the norm, even when Christianity was more widespread than it is today

"Your Liberalsim, your Atheism, they are not like that despite religion in the USA, but BECAUSE of it. Like it or not, believe it or not, you, me, everybody here is an Anglo-American Protestant, and it's the reason why we give a crap about anything other than ourselves simply getting by"

Much, if not most, of American culture is influenced by Christianity. But many of the values I hold are not because of that and are in conflict with that. I'm not saying that all Christian values are bad, because they aren't.

In the latter part of the mid 80s, Japan made a deal with Argentina to allow it to 'harvest' 1 million per year out of a rookery of penguins which numbered 2 million adults. There was an outcry from Argentinians because this basically meant wiping them all out in a few seasons even though it was 'only' half per year. The deal got canceled due to the public pressure.

Mainly Catholic Argentina is traditionally of the view that man holds dominion over the creatures of creation, that they are here to serve the uses of people.
Shintoism, on the other hand, has gifted the Japanese with the view that all are equals, that people are not above other species. So why would they want to in effect wipe their brethren just to eat them - penguins, mind you, not native to the northern hemisphere and thus unknown to the Japanese palate or tradition?

That worldview is similar to that we hear of about Native Americans, down to the earth they walked upon. It's something we admire, refer to as a more positive approach to the world and the species we should opt to live along with rather than shoot and shackle. They used every part of bison and other animals they killed, right? Well, till the ones on the great plains got a hold of horses and guns. Then, suddenly, there was a bit more hooves and bones and intenstines left to rot.
Turns out necessity is a BIG driver when it comes to not wasting, regardless what a religion/philosohy teaches us about it.

It also turns out that when you view other life as equal, as having the same worth as us, it puts them on the same level, which, sadly, might not be on their even playing field of choice, as people such as the Japanese who live in a harsh earthquake and tsunami prone zone with little suitable stone for construction think if they have to struggle to survive, so should everything else, and if they don't want to end up part of a sashimi penguin platter, you better learn to swim a lot faster, the end.

For Christians, on the other hand, being a step closer to God than animals, well that makes them responsible for that which they are custodians of. It's not a license to kill and exploit wantonly. So instead of going Spanish on the indigenous, instead of going Hitler on your neighbors, you better do what you can to protect them some, because dominion is not a privilege, it's a RESPONSIBILITY. And on the road to becoming ever Godlike, somewhere between being a resource-rich arable land, a Protestant work ethic, and a relative... p.1

pt.2
....somewhere between having* a resource-rich arable land, a Protestant work ethic, notions of Manifest Destiny, and a relatively rapid migration from Britain to the colonies then later to the West, causing people in alien lands to seek what familiarity they could, which, turned out could be found in churches, thus the higher than European levels of religiosity we see to this very day, the Bible Belt not coincidentally found where that westward spread was most concentrated.

So ironically, dominion-leaning religious feelings, and the weird idea that it was our destiny, nay, duty to conquer all the land from shore to shore left people with what later had them looking outwards, and ultimately to the benefit of those outside our lands. So instead of doing what any other power would have done after winning WWI & WWII for them hapless victims abroad, which would be to OWN the territories we conquered as well as those we liberated, we decided to rebuild them. In our image. God's image.

You know who else did this? Cyrus the Great, 2600 years ago. That's it (far as I know), and he KEPT the lands he conquered & liberated. Other than that, from what I know, everyone else has TAKEN from what they fought for, and taken till they were sucked dry and weren't worth holding on to no more. Then they set them free. And poor.

The most generous people on Earth are Americans, and among them, it is Church going Christians who donate and volunteer far more than anyone else. Now it can be argued that, yeah, sure, they're doing it for the church, because the pastor asked the congregation, because everyone esle there is watching, but bottom line is, they ARE doing it, and more than everyone else, not only including but ESPECIALLY Liberals and Atheists, who rank pretty low, except for Muslims in the M.E./Central Asia, who rank so low, leaders of their countries routinely request the UN and whatnot to leave them off of lists tabulating ranking of such things, not that they're alone in not being prone to give, American Christians far outranking their European counterparts as well, and some exceedingly friendly places like Italy ranking abysmally low. Even when Angela Myrkel demanded the US should, as usual, donate way more to help Indonesia after the 2004 Tsunami, American Christians donated far more money and time that her and the rest of the entitled thumb suckers on Planet Welfare. Because they believe in God? You hear any whom they helped complaining about that?

"The most generous people on Earth are Americans..."

Source? According to the latest World Giving Index we're not even in the top 10.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-charitable-countries

The source? Yours.

Not to be nitpicky, but doesn't that mean the most generous people on Earth WERE Americans? I suppose I'm getting lost in the weeds here. Charity is charity. I'm just glad they didn't include tithing in their calculations.

Hold up while I check the dailies...

I've heard this for years, and in different ways, not like I check for confirmation on it in a regular basis. I was "whattha?" when I saw this today, as it wasn't expected.

The Tsuanmi was what, 04? I wouldn't even be online for another decade, and I heard it even back then. Then being in regards to Merkel's big whiny demanding mouth while she and her country were still too busy recovering from losing WWII to get off their gelatinous asses and doing something for someone themselves.

Heard the Conservatives & Church thing in more recent years, and others in between.
Bear in mind who started the trend in the first place, as Planet Earth was one selfish place before the Marshall Plan and the power of negative publicity... Even all the way to Edhi, Pakistan's very first volunteer!

I looked up which country donated the most per capita expecting to find Ireland, as I'd always heard they led the pack for generosity. Apparently that was never factual.

The US leads the world in a great many things, many of which are indeed great.

No comment, other than I take it you've not encountered many.
Let's just say people who are a little on the 'reserved disposition' side tend not to be renowned for they charity,,,

On the other hand, in one of these comparisons years ago I heard, as mentioned, Italians, who are warmer than most, as surprisingly cheap with the helping.

Whoops, end of the comment chain, and I still haven't figured out how to comment hack on this site.

The 2 Irish people I know personally are incredibly warm, generous people...to their friends. Outside of that I have no idea. Although they WERE both born in the US, to Irish parents. One is a 1st generation native American (holy shit does that sound weird), the other is 3rd.

I'd heard that the Irish Irish (that sounds fxcked up too) donate en mass after natural disasters, because they know all too well how bad disasters suck for people. But I could also see that cutting unnecessarily into the whisky budget...

Wherever Ireland used to be on the list, they've slipped waaaaay down in recent years as well. 🥃 🍻

There was an Irish family on the other side of my block when I was a kid, parents straight from there. Super nice. An elderly Irish American couple across the street too, they were like grandparents to us.

But in later years, like in Fordham U in the Bronx that I went too, it was, at least the residents, majority Irish-American, from Tri-State burbs. And they could be a tad aloof, to put it nicely. Odd too, because some I knew on campus from classes n whatnot would ignore me & my circle in the bars, but would be friendly again come Monday in school. Or some we met in bars ignored us on campus. Was really weird, I could never figure that out. But even those that would be freindly to us, they still kept something of a distance.

Religion bounds people together, cancel culture thorns them apart.

I myself am not religious, but if someone is you must respect their choice.

"Religion bounds people together, cancel culture thorns them apart"

And religion often involves canceling people who aren't part of the group

"I myself am not religious, but if someone is you must respect their choice"

I have to respect their freedom of religion, I don't have to respect the religion itself

"And religion often involves canceling people who aren't part of the group"

Lies, that was only in the old testament of the bible and some other old religions. If done right they can be good.

That's a fact, not a lie. And I didn't say anything about the Bible.

Nope, lies. In some acses it does and it others it doesn't.

You can't accuse me of lying and then say that I am at least partly right

Where do you find the patience to engage this guy? He demonstrates all the capacity for growth and learning of a lazily scripted bot. It's like trying to have an adult conversation with a child, minus the potential for gain on either side. As a valid observation, if this gets removed for being insulting, it only underscores the tragedy of that which is observed.

You are still not fully right.

About which part?

Religion "canceling" people