Are deeply religious people inherently stupid or is it just early brainwashing or a desire to belong?

The reason it's called "faith" is precisely that.

You can't measure someone's inner life and experience with a logical yardstick.

If you haven't got the courage or grace to know what a calling is, or to feel the Spirit, then please stop with the arrogance that thinks the world begins and ends with your perception of things.

^^ dumbass Jesus freak ^^

Many are weak minded and because their lives fit into that box, they don't question the validity of religion. The perks are many. Networking for spouses, jobs, discounts. Gratification from thinking that they are virtuous, chosen and superior to other mortals.

Most of them probably sweat like whores in church.

Some are incredibly naive and/or weak-minded. Really, you could re-program them to believe anything.

Others use religion as a tool: for success, controlling people, superiority...

R3 But what about gay religious nuts like R1? What’s their reason when their identity doesn’t fit into that box?

Apparently, they have issues with their sexual identity.

R2

Wow, you really zinged me there. I'm cringing in the corner.

For you, I predict a conversion experience like the one St Paul had. Like you., he was a fucking asshole who got off persecuting people of faith until life bitch-slapped him and he became a nicer person.

May this happen to you sooner rather than later for all our sakes.

^ This guy is a piece of work. I’m imaging a guy who hooks up on Grindr on Saturday night and then confesses and does his 10 Hail Mary’s on Sunday.

R1 - R7 is a typical religious cunt. Enters with a snooty air of superiority combined with an ingrained delusion of victimhood, feigns "faith," but is too chickenshit to clearly state what she wants; for people who peg her as a cunt to die.

And St. Paul was a closeted fag, R1-R7. So are you.

On some level, I think people use religion as comfort. It's easier to think there is an afterlife and they live on, rather than facing the thought that there may be nothing.

Religion was started when the first conman met the first fool!

- Mark Twain

Most people are brainwashed. It's called indoctrination. Plus religion and science always coexisted until recently. Disregarding homophobia and misogyny aside, I wonder if religion is a net positive. I mean the world is a scary place and it does seem for a highly intelligent mammalian species, we would use our imagination to provide a sorta mental comfort blanket. There's not much feeling of safety relying on just logic and science after all. I'm an agnostic but I don't mind religion as long as it absolutely stays out of the government. American Christian fundamentalists seem to want this country to be the Middle East where the governments are theocracies.

I never understood the need for some people to believe in religion as a "comfort".

Why? Why do you NEED religion to feel comfortable?

Why do they look down on people who don't conform to their beliefs?

I'm a BAD PERSON because I think all religion is unnecessary?

The greatest art in the Western world was created by people of great faith. So don't be stupid dickheads and think you know everything.

As a former religious nut myself, it definitely was my upbringing. Plays a strong part in my culture

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

— Stuart Chase

OP, why are you obsessed with others’ faith/beliefs? Is it because you’re so miserable and unhappy that you can only find joy in mocking people who have aligned themselves with a higher power?

Here’s a thought: Why don’t you turn your energies inward and use them for self-reflection and growth instead of sending them outward to judge and ridicule others?

Blaise Pascal, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Simone Weil, Immanuel Kant and Augustine were anything but stupid.

You may not understand or feel the religious impulse, but plenty of men and women of genius have. One strong sign of high intelligence is the admission that there are things in the world that you don't understand.

Agree, r17. I would add, among others, Alexander Grothendieck, Leo Tolstoy, and Thomas Merton.

Two of the smartest people I know are both rather religious. I suspect that temperament plays a larger role than intellect. Also, I tend to find smug atheists almost as annoying as sincere believers. Proselytizing of any kind -- religious, political, philosophical -- is what annoys me.

I find religion and intellect incompatible, always had too many unanswered questions. However, I have found comfort and stability within the framework and historical connection within the church. You can appreciate what the church can offer without believing everything it espouses. You just have to find the right church

R1 = HHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

You people are deranged nuts who should be locked up in a rubber room.

The only reason you aren’t is because of a peculiar mix of human stupidity, history, and politics that made religion a (fast fading) norm.

I.E. an American R9.

Nah, I don’t buy that, R10. I think it might be that when you’re a teen or young and you’re having your first major existential crisis, but most people grow out of that, even religious nuts.

Too many fat Americans want something supernatural in their ordinary, fat lives, especially those fat, ugly superstitious Latinos.

Religion and homosexuality is 100% incompatible, but considering the whacko far right invasion here, it’s no surprise that a bunch of religious dipshit morons populate this thread.

^ what R18 said

One of the absolutely most brilliant people I know is deeply religious. He had religion beat into him from his birth and he's never been able to escape it. It's fascinating to watch him grapple with it and try to justify it, but also sad, specifically the daily war waged inside him between his gayness and his religious beliefs. After 60 long years, he still can't find peace and I blame his fucking bible-thumping parents. If there is a hell, I hope they're burning in it.

Yes.

The supercilious arrogance on this thread is unsurprising, nor is the casual racism at r23, but it’s still a bit depressing.

Writing off swathes of people who believe differently from you as stupid and unquestioning suggests you have limited traffic outside your bubble. As others have noted, there are multitudes of fiercely intelligent people of faith, but not just in the west, all over the world.

All of the above, OP.

[quote]If you haven't got the courage or grace to know what a calling is, or to feel the Spirit, then please stop with the arrogance that thinks the world begins and ends with your perception of things.

This is a good example of brainwashing.

Abrahamic faiths aren't anti intellectual per se. Judaism, Christianity and Islam actually both value education and seeking knowledge. For their time, they were considered radical. Christianity and Islam especially appealed to the poor. The fundamentalist strains didn't start popping up it seemed until the late medieval ages and got strongest in the 20th century.

As an atheist, I’m constantly surprised by my sister who is a devout Christian. She is smart, funny, generous and is exactly what you would expect a person of faith to be. As a deacon of the church, she has stood with people from every stripe. Her church runs lots of social programs, she’s a total giver. She never tries to convert me or beat me over the head with her faith. Her church is organized around acts of giving, not politics. Her desire is to help, not to belong. These people are still out there, they’re just not in media.

Spiritual people have a different psychoemotional makeup. They can see visions, undergo weird emotional transformations, and so on.

Religious people can run the gamut from cultural conditioning to ruthless exploration of people with a spiritual bent.

A handful of DLers, here present, are disproportionately triggered by a handful of topics: any consideration of restraint in sex, weight, Follies and Hillary Clinton come to mind (who paradoxically is both fat and deeply Methodist.) Anything about faith is another one.

It's a form of brain washing from birth and some level of delusion. Like their ancestors they are taught to be terrified of the wrath of God if they don't do what some holy many tells them to do. It's all part of organized religion's way to keep the money flowing into the church. It's all they know.

Most overly religious people I know aren’t that well educated. Or that intelligent.

Oh wow, OP. I can really tell that you're looking to have an honest discussion about the topic. You totally didn't attempt to steer the conversation or attack anyone with your opening salvo.

I eagerly await your next thread titled "Are niggers inherently stupid or is it just early brainwashing or an inability to act civilized?"

R1 / R7, here's a fascinating question: Since I don't believe in God and religion and heaven and hell), but you do, can I tell you to go to hell?

[quote]It's all part of organized religion's way to keep the money flowing into the church. It's all they know.

Originally the only way to keep savage people from killing each other to steal the other's possessions / food etc. in a lawless society.

[quote]One of the absolutely most brilliant people I know is deeply religious. He had religion beat into him from his birth and he's never been able to escape it. It's fascinating to watch him grapple with it and try to justify it, but also sad, specifically the daily war waged inside him between his gayness and his religious beliefs. After 60 long years, he still can't find peace and I blame his fucking bible-thumping parents. If there is a hell, I hope they're burning in it.

I'm very sorry to hear this, but also a little surprised that his intelligence didn't allow him to escape religion as he matured. I certainly don't consider myself brilliant, but the way I look at it, I began to reject organized religion in my late teens, when my brain had matured and I had learned enough about the world and history to realize, on a completely rational basis, what a lie it is.

[quote]I never understood the need for some people to believe in religion as a "comfort".

Boil it down and most people are afraid to accept there's nothing after they die. It's too big to comprehend and too frightening to accept. Therein lies the comfort.

Plus, for literally centuries, the churches had power and influence. They also served as social connections in countries that were mostly rural and agrarian. How they built their base is really not hard to figure. Religious faith became a reflex. Look at the number of people on DL who lose their shit whenever the notion of the greatest nation on earth gets challenged. It's really not that different.

[quote]Boil it down and most people are afraid to accept there's nothing after they die. It's too big to comprehend and too frightening to accept. Therein lies the comfort.

Of course this is true, but I'm surprised you didn't mention that people also use religion as "comfort" when bad things happen in their lives, whether it be the death of a loved one or a pandemic or whatever. They just CAN'T accept that things happen for various reasons including luck, human effort or human error, biology (i.e., diseases), and so on, so they stick to the fiction that whatever happens is "God's will. " And, for some reason I can't comprehend, that makes them feel better, even when something really, really terrible happens.

I think you overstate the number of people who fall back on the notion of God's will. Focus group of one but I've never heard anybody use that one.

Isn’t all religious belief a way to unload your worries onto some “being”? I.e Jesus take the wheel? Also for those worried about death? Religious people give me pause, why should I trust suckers?

As I see it with my aunt, it's a desire to belong. She never cared that much, she was an artist, quite rebellious. Since retiring she has been going out with friends of her who are super catholic and she became like that. She never read the Bible, but she is now obsessed with Christ etc.

As I see it with a few straight friends, it's a reflexive political response. They see decadence, SO they became ultra reactionaries.

I think having a spiritual side, cherish it, nurture it, is very important, but it should never become somthing that blurs your mind. A "call" should come from the inside.

[quote]I think you overstate the number of people who fall back on the notion of God's will. Focus group of one but I've never heard anybody use that one.

I'm sure you're right that not everyone who believes in God insists that everything that happens is the world is "God's will." I'm sure there are some religious people who also make room in their heads for concepts like free will of human beings, bad luck, human error, viruses, etc. Of course there are the "everything is God's will" people as well -- most recently exemplified by the parents of that kid who died after digging an eight-foot hole in the sand on a beach and then having the sand collapse around him and bury him -- but neither you nor I can say what percentage of the population they represent.

[quote] any consideration of restraint in sex, weight, Follies and Hillary Clinton come to mind (who paradoxically is both fat and deeply Methodist.)

And Mrs Clinton’s two failed presidential campaigns were themselves follies.

They're lazy and fearful (the fear is part of the laziness) more than stupid.

Sometimes I admire them. Their family member can be murdered and they would be like, yes, I forgive them, citing their religion etc. I mean, straight away they forgive!

The religious people in my life are so either from habit, guilt (especially Catholics) or personality-disorders (you know, the types that feel superior due to their 'faith'). A few times I have come across true believers who are truly kind folks, but it is rare. I grew up in the church and that colors my view of religious people. I reflexively think most are damaged and/or con artists because that is who filled the churches I went to growing up.

[quote] Are deeply religious people inherently stupid or is it just early brainwashing or a desire to belong?

No reason it can't be all three of those reasons, OP.

No one bothers me if they don’t impose on me and use religion to justify their behavior or politics. I respect those who’s spiritual beliefs are closely held and shared essentially on an asked basis- whether atheist or very orthodox.

And FYI, not one religion in the world has a position on abortion based on any written word. That kind of justification for a belief is the crux of evil in human experience. It disgusts me and immediately turns me away from anyone making similar claims.

Read The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.

Asl ong as someones beliefs aren't pushed on my or used to influence our government...I don’t care what someone believes or whether they are stupid or not for their beliefs.

I’m an atheist and sometimes envy those with a strong faith in a god that can help them

Consider this, OP: Maybe they just know something that the truly stupid and brainwashed people do not.

They believe that know something. Also because of brainwashing.

I know a lot of nonreligious people who were raised in church, temple or whatever. And while they left their faith. They didn't regret being raised in it because of the structure and tradition. Many Jews I met are atheist but said they want to raise their kids in the faith just for the discipline alone. I was raised Protestant in one of those charismatic Baptist churches, I left it because the homophobia and misogyny. But there's elements I did appreciate like the sense of belonging and moral duties. I just wish it wasn't so bigoted towards homosexuality. It's funny because we had female fellowships, female deacons and parties. And there were obvious flaming queens in our church choir. I did try going to a Presbyterian and Methodist church and I liked them. I went to a friend's Mormon temple and thought it was creepy. The racist doctrine will never not bother me. I don't like Pentecostal or fundamentalist mega churches either. Quakerism is probably the only denomination I hold high regard for because they are consistent in their peace pledge with their conscientious objection and anti-slavery. Amish and Mennonites I have mixed feelings on but I do like their self sufficiency..

It’s brainwashing. It can all be debunked by reading history. I knew someone who was religious and taught CCD and I was surprised that he spoke of Canaan, which is pre-Israel because you learn about El and all the origins of the New Testament that kinda exposes everything lol.

I always say science doesn’t debunk religion, history does. The fact that polytheism predates monotheism was kind of enough for me.

Atheists raised me and I believe childhood teaching has a lot to do with it. I don't really care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to convert me. What I get really angry about when it comes to religion is when the Gov uses religion to control us. I am referring to the SC shit. They are a catholic org now. Almost all of them are religious Catholics. I think it had its place in history, the church was the policing agency when humans were still pretty barbaric. but now we have laws. Shaming actually works well but we don't do that anymore unless it is to shame people for stupid shit like the woke culture does.

[quote]R59: Shaming actually works well but we don't do that anymore unless it is to shame people for stupid shit like the woke culture does.

How about some examples of some of the "stupid shit" for which you think "woke" culture shames people?

And some examples of the shaming you think was effective and justified?

[quote]No one bothers me if they don’t impose on me and use religion to justify their behavior or politics.

But so many of them do just that. Also, deeply religious people warp the minds of their children by indoctrinating them in their religion, almost never allowing them to be open-minded and make their own decisions on whether to follow that religion or another religion or no religion.

[quote]I respect those who’s spiritual beliefs are closely held and shared essentially on an asked basis- whether atheist or very orthodox.

Oh, dear.

[quote]Many Jews I met are atheist but said they want to raise their kids in the faith just for the discipline alone.

That makes zero sense to me. There's no way they can teach their children discipline without religion????

R2 Where did he mention Jesus?

R62 It's complicated. Judaism is like a cultural heritage rather than solely a religion. You're born into it. A lot of Catholics and Mormons have a similar thing going on where even if they're not religious, they are so ingrained it's traditions and rituals that it's part of their identity.

[quote]R31: Abrahamic faiths aren't anti intellectual per se. Judaism, Christianity and Islam actually both value education and seeking knowledge. For their time, they were considered radical.

All three have built highly self-referential systems of belief and 'fact' assertions, and it is to these systems they refer for "education and seeking knowledge." All three have histories of hostility towards any discovery or fact which does not agree with the respective belief system. And none of them have held a candle to the bodies of 'pagan' knowledge they destroyed and supplanted.

[quote]The fundamentalist strains didn't start popping up it seemed until the late medieval ages and got strongest in the 20th century.

Untrue. In early Christianity and the Middle Ages, the Church used to torture and kill people over mere differences of opinion. Once relatively modern systems of secular laws developed, the churches lost the ability to prosecute behaviors and thought crime. Even as bad as it seems to be getting today, they still haven't recovered anything like their former power.

R24 We have gay Rabbis.

[quote]R2 Where did he mention Jesus?

Don't be disingenuous, R63. No other Abrahamic religion focuses on masturbation except Christianity. That Christianity is the focus here is implied.

R65 Judaism and Islam both encouraged literacy. You must know Hebrew and Arabic respectively to read the texts. Which made their populations more educated than the average European Christian who couldn't read. Literacy improves critical thought. As for destruction of paganism, I think you're talking about the Catholic Church. Not early strains of Christianity that appealed to the poor and encouraged asceticism and seeking the "gnosis." The Islamic World was a hotbed of scientific progress, mathematics, geography, literature art and medicine. Islam at the time was revolutionary in its socialist message. It wasn't until constant stress of invasions and rise of instability that led to more radical strains popping up. It got worse in the 20th century due to oil-rich Muslim men who wanted to exploit the region and profit off the West. The region never stabilized and a negative identity formed to oppose Western values and stay theocratic. It also led to a mass destruction of Middle Eastern pagan and Buddhist temples and architecture by Islamist extremists.

R67 I don't remember the Old or New Testament mentioning masturbation. Just like abortion. It was not an issue or a thought until radical fundamentalists made it one. Homosexuality didn't even seem to bother many until the later Medieval Ages.

Thanks, R64. That explanation makes a little more sense to me, but I would still say it's certainly possible to teach children discipline without religion. You do have point about traditions, because many traditions I can think of are based in religion. But some are based in culture without being based in religion. Then there are the traditions that are based in nationality, like the Pledge of Allegiance -- and, of course, many people have problems with that as well.

R69 I agree that you can teach discipline and values without religion. I would say Western values in general are more Greco-Roman than Christian. Just like East Asian values are more along Confucian or Taoist than Buddhist or shamanist. Almost every ethnicity has some religion tied to it though. I do think Jews who are atheist simply apply the Ten Commandments, educational aspirations and bringing goodness to the world in a more secular manner. Younger Christians and Muslims seem to be going for a secular thing where they can apply the values without the religious fanaticism. As Christianity and Islam are based on Middle Eastern cultural values basically boiling down to "be good to others" and having a sense of justice and respect for your community.

[quote]Judaism and Islam both encouraged literacy.

For certain select groups, R68, yes. Women were prohibited, and poorer classes were closed out of opportunities.

[quote]You must know Hebrew and Arabic respectively to read the texts. Which made their populations more educated than the average European Christian who couldn't read.

Granted.

[quote]Literacy improves critical thought.

Does it, though? Especially when one is only permitted to read religious texts and accept them dogmatically?

[quote]As for destruction of paganism, I think you're talking about the Catholic Church.

I'm talking about Christianity, yes.

[quote]Not early strains of Christianity that appealed to the poor and encouraged asceticism and seeking the "gnosis."

That "knowledge" generally consisted of subjective religious revelation, not science. Encouraging asceticism is not particularly conducive to knowledge, either. The 'appeal to the poor' is often asserted (based upon a few statements appearing in the 'Sermon' which were lifted from collections of cynic sayings and attribute to Jesus), but poorly demonstrated in practice. Followers of the Church were mostly illiterate, and were led around like sheep, with adjurations to 'believe in what we have handed down to you.' It was not for their intellectual or physical betterment.

[quote]The Islamic World was a hotbed of scientific progress, mathematics, geography, literature art and medicine.

Which it cultivated based mostly upon rediscoveries of lost Greek works of science. That 'renaissance' was temporary.

[quote]I don't remember the Old or New Testament mentioning masturbation. Just like abortion. It was not an issue or a thought until radical fundamentalists made it one.

But in considering religious points of view, we cannot confine ourselves to the Jewish or New Testaments, can we? This isn't 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎 𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎 here. Church fathers as early as Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd-early 3rd century) was interpreting the story of Onan in Genesis 38 as prohibiting both 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠 and masturbation, and masturbation was for centuries held to be among the things to be ascetically resisted.

And abortion was cited in the late 2nd/early 3rd century 'Epistle of Barnabas.' These are not exclusively modern developments. (Homosexuality is a much bigger topic, and needs its own thread.)

R35 Why are you so narrow as to believe all people of faith are churchgoers?

R71 You need a hobby, PoisonedDragon. Or post us your scholarly articles. I get you hate anything that's not Ancient European paganism though despite the fact patriarchy, misogyny and homophobia was justified through that too.

Women back then regardless were confined to the home, property of their father - later husband and second-class because of agrarian patriarchal society. Ancient Greeks, Romans and Arabs were extremely misogynistic and compared women to shrews, animals and saw them as lustful, petty and childish. Judaism, Christianity and Islam mentioned women in a positive manner. Old Testament alone had strong, intelligent and sympathetic women like Hagar, Eve, Tamar, Sarah, Leah, Rebekah, Rachel, Ruth, Vashti, Bathsheba, Delilah, Dinah and Esther. The men like Cain, Issac, David, Saul, Jacob and Abraham were all pretty much portrayed as deeply flawed. In the New Testament, Jesus had female disciples of Mary Magdelene, Susana and Joanna and Jesus did not shame prostitutes or Gentile women. The Quran explicitly states women and men are equal in God's eye. Women could initiate divorce in Islam. It was progressive in ways especially at the time. Today, it's dated and there's still patriarchal spects but at the time, it was revolutionary.

[quote]You need a hobby, PoisonedDragon.

It would seem that I have one, R73. You just don't like it.

[quote]I get you hate anything that's not Ancient European paganism...

I haven't said anything about "Ancient European paganism," which tended to share the peculiar Iron Age focus upon human sacrifice to gain the favor of the gods. That wasn't what I was talking about at R65.

though despite the fact patriarchy, misogyny and homophobia was justified through that too.

Abrahamic religions - particularly Christianity - did nothing to remedy any of that, but rather exacerbated it, so what's your point?

[quote]Judaism, Christianity and Islam mentioned women in a positive manner. Old Testament alone had strong, intelligent and sympathetic women like Hagar, Eve, Tamar, Sarah, Leah, Rebekah, Rachel, Ruth, Vashti, Bathsheba, Delilah, Dinah and Esther.

I'm not seeing it, R74. Such assertions are generally the province of apologetics, which attempt to deflect criticism of the religions in question. As such, they take the mere fact that such women are 𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑑 as evidence of a positive outlook, and milk it for more than it's worth.

Many such characters only merit mention for being placeholders for characters from Greek works like the Illiad being transvaluated to the Jewish and Christian religious texts, and not because they were important of themselves.

I don't think most religious people are stupid - stupid; however, I do think they need a magical sky fairy to help them be "good" and make death not so scary.

So much of it is habit. The catholic church always said, "if you get them as children you will have them for life". And from my own experience, if you don't get them young you will lose them forever. I suppose it has its place for weak-minded people or for those who need rules and structure.

OP - I'm an atheist and even I find your post repulsive. What do you care what other people believe? I sure don't. You sound very bitter and sad.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

R23, do you live near Long Beach CA?

Spirituality is genetically determined.

This sums it up for me.

[quote]With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

^^ quote by Steven Weinberg

Sorry -- I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I love Mark Twain's take on religion. I'm going to post this very short story of his here, but if you get the chance, also read "The Mysterious Stranger."

[quote]R80: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

That doesn't mean what most who quote it think it does.

Why even use a term so general as "religion"? Say Christianity, I doubt your tirade is directed towards the Druzes or the Karaites, likewise I doubt that even your grasp of Christianity and the experience of it is satisfying in any form or way. In your paragraph you enunciate two things: first a watered-down version of the anthropological critique of religion (à la Feuerbach, rather than à la Durkheim) and a blind obsession with sexual matters, which makes you completely unable to comprehend why some would oppose your meagre hedonistic moral (or rather immorality).

God is not the alienating projection of the possible perfection of man into some ethereal entity, but a real being, I will offer only one proof of His existence, since the cosmological proof is the one that per scientific evidence and logic learned people are the least inclined to reject, and that is that before a certain point there was neither space, time or matter, the so-called "Big Bang", and we can conceive only of one thing that not only can exist outside of time and space, and isn't material but also is capable, in some way we cannot comprehend, of producing space, time and matter out of nothing, and that is God. It would be baffling to believe as the mechanistic deists or theists did and do, that He created the point from where all that is and then laid back never finding one sole reason to intervene in some way, indeed, the mechanist can argue that He has no reason to intervene once the clock has been made and put into action, it's dead matter working through the phases one would expect, but, we have aplenty of reasons to believe that we are more than vibrating atoms, working out of necessity (ie. that we have no freedom), this place isn't the best to argue at any length about freedom of the will, so I will only impel to common sense, determinism affirms that your whole existence, that your choices, for better or worse, and the actions of others were only an "illusion", that nobody is worthy or guilty, law is arbitrary and worthless, morality senseless, in short, what people call the absurdity of existence (the only really absurd thing is to hold such opinions, not existence).

On to morality, that religious people exist has not impeded you in any particular form since you reached maturity and were able to sustain yourself of exercising yourself in any particular way you want (which seems obvious is the case insofar), hereafter, why do you feel the need to impel others (in the same situation as yourself, that of being a free citizen), since you lack any moral base from which to direct such attacks, to abandon their religion and join you in wallowing in a lifestyle as empty as yours? People are free to be rational and accept that there are aplenty reasons to believe, and to partake in religion, to subject oneself to obedience to precepts and doctrines, and accept discipline from appropriate authorities. Can they pontificate about morality? Yes, if they did not they would be inconsequential, for they believe their precepts to be based both on natural law (most at least do, with certain exceptions like the Barthians) and divine (ie. revealed) law (natural law has the same source as revealed precepts, God, hence it's equally divine but general unlike revealed things which is particular to the faithful), the first can be imposed legitimately (and still an erring society can persist in their error, it's legitimate to resist) while the former can't, because revelation concerns the faithful and not others, Bible-thumping is worthless because those faithless don't care about the Bible and will not care as much as you thump the Bible, but those who Bible-thump or counter-Bible-thump really have not much of an alternative, since the 1900s faculties of theology and philosophy have become desertified of proper learning and all has been reduced to the two-poles of fundamentalism and Biblical criticism of some sort when treating these matters.

One last word, aphorism is the meagre domain of the pretentious.

That's an amazing quote, R83. Thank you.

Thanks, R1. I've never been particularly religious in the conventional sense, although I was raised in a religious home. I do look back with appreciation to the times when a person could be in the church pew on Sunday and the science lab on Monday without any inconsistency. As you note, those parts of the individual can exist simultaneously and without significant conflict.

[quote] Aphorism is the meagre domain of the pretentious.

Indeed.

R87 tl;dr: “God must exist because he can’t *not* exist.”

It was piffle when Pascal said it, and it’s piffle now.

R89 There’s a reason they call it a “pew.” Because when you’re surrounded by that much bullshit, it stinks.

No matter how much pseudo-intellectual claptrap it’s wrapped in, religionists always end up calling nonbelievers immoral, empty, etc.

Yawn.

^ That's because they project their own immoral emptiness on the rest of us 😠

[quote]I do look back with appreciation to the times when a person could be in the church pew on Sunday and the science lab on Monday without any inconsistency. As you note, those parts of the individual can exist simultaneously and without significant conflict.

No, they REALLY cannot. But that doen't mean that people on opposite sides here need to constantly be at each other's throats; that only becomes necessary when religious people try to control what is taught in the classroom and otherwise ignore the (supposed) division between church and state.

Atheism is common as tattoos nowadays.

[quote]Atheism is common as tattoos nowadays.

Really? The only atheist I ever see is the one looking back at me in the mirror.

Do a lot of people really identify as "atheist" or, "I'm too hungover on Sunday morning to go to church" 🤔

I lived happily under the peace and tranquility of Landru until forced to find eternal life with the people of Vaal.

Deeply religious people will offer "thoughts & prayers" for the dead children from today's Texas school shootings, citing "God's will" as they rush to their local WalMart's gun department to stock up.

The same way that educated people can believe that a man can become a woman, OP.

Some people are just prone to fantasy.

I believe in an invisible man in the sky who is totally cool with me masturbating. It's my grandmother watching from heaven that vexes me.

All of the above, why do you ask?

What she (reply 11) said. Mark Twain quote. "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”

Any idiot with internet access can study reincarnation and near death experiences (nde’s) and find out there’s something there that we cannot explain with science. .Everyone’s life is their own personal journey back to the source. Just because you cannot see something, doesn’t mean no one else can. Only “stupid” people think everyone else’s experiences are identical to theirs.

That's fine, R105, but I don't see what any of that has to do with belief in "God."

I have problems with religious people because they kill others in the name of their god. It's mostly a propaganda tool used to control people.

If you believe in a higher power, then accept your imperfect fellow humans and let God do the judging.

Well OP, half the people in the world have less then “average intelligence” — so what do you think.

Part brainwashing, part stupidity. But mostly a desire to feel superior to everyone else. That last reason isn’t mentioned nearly enough. Their God never tells these people anything they don’t want to hear.

My family was Catholic and even at 7 or 8 years old, my first impressions were

1. Should they really be telling this to kids (Jesus put on a cross and with a crown of thorns on his head)?

2. Should they really be telling us that no matter what we do, as long as we repent, we'll always be forgiven?

I couldn't really take it seriously after knowing the second part

[quote]R96: Atheism is common as tattoos nowadays.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝 “𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭”

February 19, 2015 by Neil Carter

Christian media outlets are fond of touting the latest story about a “former atheist” becoming a Christian. These stories sell well, and I remember making much of them myself back in the day. Now that I’m on the other side of this issue, I hear this declaration with different ears. Now when I hear these stories I’m not so sure they’re entirely accurate. Listening to these converts talk about their former lives, I can’t help thinking something isn’t quite right. Something leads me to think that if they’re telling the truth, they’re at least “telling it slant.”

𝐍𝐨 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭?

On the surface it will sound like I’m using a “No True Atheist” argument. It sounds like I’m saying that no real atheist would ever quit being one to become a Christian (I’m not). Surely by now you’ve heard writers on this site disparage the No True Christian argument, and we have good reason for doing that. When we talk about our former lives as believers, we are routinely dismissed by people asserting 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 because according to them no true Christian would ever stop being one. Their theology won’t allow it. We must have just done it wrong, or else we were never sincere about it. This irritates the stew out of us because for some of us it invalidates 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠 of investment in our former tradition. It also denies us our rightful place at the discussion table on matters about which we have earned the right to speak.

I don’t think I’m doing that right now because I’m genuinely listening to the things these “former atheists” are saying and I honestly haven’t ever heard an atheist say the things they’re saying. It reminds me of that scene in 𝑇ℎ𝑒 40 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑂𝑙𝑑 𝑉𝑖𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 when the guys are sitting around discussing the feel and texture of women’s breasts and Andy reports that they feel like bags of sand. The other guys freeze and turn to stare at him like he has an extra appendage growing out of his forehead. Clearly the man had no idea what he was talking about, and anybody with any real life experience would know better.

That’s kind of what it feels like when I’m listening to these stories. The perspectives they’re portraying sound unlike anything I’ve ever heard an atheist say. On the other hand, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑓𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠: that we’ve really always believed the Christian message but we’re just angry at God because of (fill in the blank), that we hate God, that we want to take away Christians’ freedom of speech, and that we really only disbelieved in the first place because we didn’t want anybody to be our boss but ourselves. Basically it follows the well-worn outlines of every sermon you’ve ever heard about why people don’t commit themselves to the Christian faith.

I know why this matters so much to them. I know it serves to validate their tribe whenever someone leaves another to be in theirs. Having a former member of one team join another implicitly makes the second one look superior. It adds weight to anything they say about why their team is better than the other. That’s probably why, when a certain person very close to me learned of my apostasy, he told me I was now “a dangerous person.” His sudden shift in judgment about me had nothing to do with any change in my behavior. He simply knows that a former devotee to his faith can do a lot more damage to its credibility than someone who has never inhabited that mental world.

To be continued...

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝 “𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭”

I finally figured out what’s going on here. Evangelical Christians are using a much fuzzier definition for the word “atheist.” For evangelicals, 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑑. It’s not fundamentally about belief, for you see they’ve been taught that everyone believes in God (see Paul’s 𝑎𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑐 assertion in 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟏:𝟏𝟗𝐟𝐟). What’s more, they’ve been taught that everyone worships something, which means that even people who think they don’t believe in anything are really worshiping either themselves or some nefarious deity unbeknownst to them. They’re being led astray by the devil, or by demons, or else by their own selfish desires. They’re unavoidably worshiping some kind of idol, some kind of rival god to the one they’re supposed to be worshiping. Therefore there can be no such thing as an atheist in the sense that everyone else uses the word, including atheists themselves.

Now do you see why people who grew up in a Christian culture, perhaps even with Christian parents, can say they were formerly “atheists?” Provided that they had never given their full devotion to the Christian gospel, whenever they were not fully dedicating their lives to God they were living as if there were no God. They were, in effect, living as an atheist as far as they’re concerned. That’s why people who grew up always believing in God can now say they used to be “atheists.” It’s not that they worked through multiple worldviews and after a period of critical thinking eliminated all the other options except Christianity. It’s more that they spent their earlier years uninterested in (or averse to) the religion to which they were exposed as children only to return back to that same religion out of all the options when they grew older.

Again, I know this will sound at first like I’m saying no true atheist would change his mind. It sounds like I’m doing the very thing I’ve said we hate Christians doing to us, dismissing our previous experience because we somehow didn’t fit their definition of what a true Christian is. But that’s a false equivalency in this case because there are considerably more consistent ways to define what makes a person a Christian whereas this definition of atheist isn’t really used by anyone who calls himself an atheist. Only Christians use a definition like this.

To be continued...

𝐖𝐓𝐅 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲?

To see what I mean from a slightly different angle, consider what TV preacher James Robinson suggested the other day in his interview with Mike Huckabee. He said that we currently have a “secular theocracy” in the United States and Huckabee agreed. What does that even mean? Why on earth would you use the term 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 to designate what you see as the encroachment of secular ideology on Christian freedoms? Secularists don’t have any gods…unless you’re an evangelical. Then you see this completely differently. From your perspective, even those of us who say we have no gods really do have gods, they’re just the wrong ones. We don’t 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 we’re worshiping anyone because the devil has pulled the wool over our eyes, you see. But worship we do, and we want everyone else to be forced to worship the same gods, all the while telling ourselves we worship no one and nothing.

This blurring of lines between faith and disbelief explains a lot, doesn’t it? Evangelicals are fond of saying that atheists have faith, too (probably in science or reason or empirical observation). They believe that everyone worships something, and that those of us who say we don’t believe in God really do and we just don’t know it—we’re just living in rebellion against things we really know are true in our hearts. Under this framework there’s hardly even such a thing as “an atheist” according to the definitions used by us atheists ourselves, poor saps. Under the evangelical definition, anyone not fully living up to the ideals for which they stand is living atheistically, in a way. So I guess you could say simultaneously that everyone is at least a little bit atheist, yet somehow no one really is in the end.

Does it make a little more sense now? Now do you see how all these evangelical Christians raised in Christian countries, surrounded by a Christian culture, perhaps even raised by Christian parents were somehow once “atheists?”

“𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑. 𝐼 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑖𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠.” –𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑔𝑜 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑦𝑎

^ I'd love to read all that, but I have Atheist choir practice and I have to bake these cookies for the Atheist bake sale 🙄

Normally I'd just post a link, R114. But since the blog from which it came no longer exists (except at the Wayback Machine archive), I felt it was better to post it.

It also better serves those who are afraid to click on a link.

Spot light on Church Chat.

"Well, isn't that special?" "Now, who could it be? Could it be...SATAN?!" "How Conveeenient."

R105 almost all people who have an nde come back telling of an ultimate Devine source, or “God”. Athiests, too. Almost all of these people have identical experiences that cannot be explained away.

[R106] almost all people who have an nde come back telling of an ultimate Devine source, or “God”. Athiests, too. Almost all of these people have identical experiences that cannot be explained away.

Yes, they can, R118.

The sincere ones are really no different from children: they need to be comforted and coddled and assured Big Daddy will be there when the lights go out for good.

The god(s) are no different than a baby blanket to them.

I always thought Santa Claus was just Jesus/God for kids. Be good and kind and the old guy will reward you

R37

[quote]I eagerly await your next thread titled "Are niggers inherently stupid or is it just early brainwashing or an inability to act civilized?"

This is a thread about religious nuts, not racism. It’s funny how some people see racism everywhere, even when it’s not there.