Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Judaism

0 (0%)

Christianity

17 (23.3%)

Islam

1 (1.4%)

Hinduism

0 (0%)

Taoism

0 (0%)

Buddhism

0 (0%)

Scientology

2 (2.7%)

Other (please tell)

7 (9.6%)

Athiest

35 (47.9%)

Undecided

1 (1.4%)

Agnostic

10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[Ghills]

Yeah, not buying "it's not a punishment" here.

I mean, from a Christian perspective, since everyone is basically just born tainted and mildly evil, you just kind of are condemned until redeems I guess??? I dont know, I don't remember much of the specifics from my pre-atheism sunday school days.

That actually varies widely depending on the sect of Christianity.

The LDS church, for example, believes that prior to age 8 kids are not morally responsible because young children are still learning how to choose right from wrong. 

Also, under LDS theology you have to deliberately and with malice aforethought choose evil to wind up eternally condemned to hell/outer darkness. Most people will wind up in one of the three degrees of glory with a perfected body.  Some people (murderers, liars, adulterers, sorcerers, whoremongers, etc) will get stuck in spirit prison inbetween death and resurrection into their perfected body, and it's the job of the rest of us to help and guide them so they can leave that state. 

People who have lived more in tune with God will be able to live closer to where He dwells. If we made choices that make us uncomfortable in His presence He's not going to make us move in with Him. He's created places for everyone to have the eternity that they worked towards, which will mostly be glorious and joyful.  The whole purpose of this life is so we can put our principles into action and become a fully realized person who can judge good from evil.  At the end of it, some people will be unhappy about the results of their choices but that's not something God is doing to them.  That's something they chose over the course of more than a lifetime. 

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Mormons.

I want to be a sorcerer in spirit prison! 

[Ghills]

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but that comes across as very dismissive eye-rolling.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Listen, LDS may give children under 8 a free pass, but the rest of it is even more messed up, corrupt, and backwards than general catholicism or protestantism. If the official stand point of the church is that humans are born without original sin, fantastic! That's a step in the right direction. But if we're going to talk about principles and avoiding condemnation in the eyes of some higher power by living a purposeful and good life, well, the LDS church and wider community has both historically and contemporaneously been known as... less than reputable.

The threat of punishment is a building block of religion. You think differently when you are terrified of retribution. The very mention of such horrible punishment itself invokes questions of whether or not you perhaps have such temptations yourself, affecting your self esteem and confidence, etc. etc. In practically all religions, such thoughts of divine retribution and eternal damnation have been deeply and consistently abused. IMO, regardless of whether or not you are taught FROM BIRTH (as all religions LOVE to start unknowing children young anyways) that you are innately evil or perhaps just that evil is something that you could fall into, the ominous and overwhelming promise of a potential horrifying failure condition has to be considered a potential punishment. A powerful one that deeply, and oftentimes wrongly conditions people to act "good" without actually cultivating any sort of real, internal moral compass. 

(and as an Atheist I am very dismissive and eye-roll-y of most/all religion, yes)

[Starver]

I mean, from a Christian perspective, since everyone is basically just born tainted and mildly evil, you just kind of are condemned until redeems I guess??? I dont know, I don't remember much of the specifics from my pre-atheism sunday school days.

IIRC, the whole Jesus/Cross thing was supposed to make the pre-Christian 'born a sinner, thanks to that unfortunate scrumping incident' thing go away and make newborns sin-free.

But that still depends a lot on various sectarian interpretations, some also needing a baptism/whatever to ascend them into "blessed until they do something to make them not, then we'll have to think about Confessions/etc" status, maybe or maybe not defaulting to the purgatorial middle-ground until that happens.

Mixing up ideology and the intent to perform accurate congregational record-keeping here on Earth is probably the driver for that kind of thing, originally, hence the various confusions.

[Ghills]

If you're not actually interested in discussions about religion why are you here in the religion thread?  If you are only going to be dismissive than there's not much point.

[hector13]

Is the position that religion is foolish not a valid position?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

If you're not actually interested in discussions about religion why are you here in the religion thread?  If you are only going to be dismissive than there's not much point.

I am discussing religion. Inherently, it it difficult for Atheists and deeply religious people to discuss religion because of our (usually) different approach to thinking about religion. To the casual practitioner, it's probably easy to see both sides, or ignore them all together and simply keep up the same old family traditions you've always ben practicing, but profoundly religious people often see their point of view as fact. As a pretty hardline Atheist myself, I too am quick to dismiss the opposing viewpoint. Whereas a zealot will simply find their beliefs to be true, others might be inclined to take a step back and consider the bigger picture outside of their own unconscious beliefs. It's difficult for someone who is saying what if to "discuss" religion with someone who says this is what is. And when two people are saying the latter, well, there's not really any discussion at all. That said, I literally just wrote a full paragraph on why condemnation IS punishment within a religious context.

Sure. I took a swipe as LDS, but I didn't hear any rebuttal from you to refute it. If you want to discuss religion, you have to be willing to discuss the practical as well as the theological. Unless you disagree, of course. If you believe I've taken a swipe at YOU, you need to step back. I haven't criticized anybody's beliefs (today anyways), merely that church of LDS was and has been known to be morally dubious. If you want to step into that discussion, well... we've got roughly a hundred years of diatribe to mete out. How I wish I could truly DISMISS religion as a relic of another age, but (and dont give me that tired human condition defense, an enabler is an enabler is an enabler) it causes so much pain, and suffering, and scientific devolution that I feel I have to address it.

[Teneb]

scientific devolution

This I need to address. The perception of religion as anthitecal to science is a very, very recent thing, and even then not universal. For most of history, priests were there scientists, because they sought to understand how the world, which they saw as a divine work, functioned.

you are taught FROM BIRTH (as all religions LOVE to start unknowing children young anyways)

This is another point I feel should be discussed, because this is not exclusive to religion. I am not saying it's bad, but you are speaking as if other belief (or disbelief) systems cannot do that. Does a capitalist not teach their children to condemn the pinko-commies? Does a communist not teach their children to condemn the capitalist pigdog? Does a religious fundamentalist not teach their children to condemn the sinful faithless? Does a hardline atheist not teach their children to condemn the self-deluded theists?

The reason people teach kids these things is not out of some form of malice, but because they genuinely believe in that, hold that as the Truth and wish to educate their progeny in such Truth.


But what I really want to post is this: religions aren't about a metaphorical Stick ("do this or else!"), it's about problems and solutions. Now, these problems, and thus their solutions, are not universal, and so this can lead to dissonance when it comes to people not understanding why someone else believes in whatever. Christianity's proposed problem is "The world is evil and kind of a shithole", it's solution is "If you defy your shitty predispositions, you can transcend this shitty mortal coil, otherwise you just go to a different kind of shithole". Buddhism is rather similar, but the method of said transcension is different, and the consequence of failure is just another lifetime in this world.

Other religions have other problems and solutions, and so it goes. Of course, you can also just... not see any problem, thus need no solution, resulting in atheism. And that is fine. But just because you see the world in a particular way, doesn't mean others do the same, which something a lot of people, theists and atheists both, miss.

[TD1]

Is the position that religion is foolish not a valid position?

I hope so. I find religious thought to be so blatantly shallow, so deeply self serving, that I can not credit it with as much respect as I am sometimes expected to do. For instance, locally there's something called "the Touch." The general idea is that there are hereditary powers passed down in families. My biology teacher at one point seriously talked about a man who had the Touch and could heal nosebleeds. Sometimes a vet will tell you to get a man with a Touch to see to your cattle, though granted that is only a story my dad told me and involved the death of the cow in question. Anyway. It's so blatantly not the case, but those who believe in it try to accord it dignity. I'm going to assume that everyone reading this agrees that it's either not the case or highly, highly unlikely; these are the eyes through which I see religion in general, and which make it hard for me to accord it respect. I believe in being polite to such people; I do not believe in reinforcing their misconception.

Edit:

But what I really want to post is this: religions aren't about a metaphorical Stick ("do this or else!"), it's about problems and solutions. Now, these problems, and thus their solutions, are not universal, and so this can lead to dissonance when it comes to people not understanding why someone else believes in whatever. Christianity's proposed problem is "The world is evil and kind of a shithole", it's solution is "If you defy your shitty predispositions, you can transcend this shitty mortal coil, otherwise you just go to a different kind of shithole". Buddhism is rather similar, but the method of said transcension is different, and the consequence of failure is just another lifetime in this world.

Could you give an example of a religion which isn't "do this or else!"?

[TD1]

Karma operates as a form of supernatural correction against bad acts. Similarly, it provides the 'carrot' as well.

[Teneb]

But what I really want to post is this: religions aren't about a metaphorical Stick ("do this or else!"), it's about problems and solutions. Now, these problems, and thus their solutions, are not universal, and so this can lead to dissonance when it comes to people not understanding why someone else believes in whatever. Christianity's proposed problem is "The world is evil and kind of a shithole", it's solution is "If you defy your shitty predispositions, you can transcend this shitty mortal coil, otherwise you just go to a different kind of shithole". Buddhism is rather similar, but the method of said transcension is different, and the consequence of failure is just another lifetime in this world.

Could you give an example of a religion which isn't "do this or else!"?

I am going to be operating under the concept that by "or else!" you mean "or else you get tortured!", because otherwise you can apply that to pretty much everything in life ("eat or else [you die]!"). With that out of the way... discordianism, for one, which I follow. Buddhism too, if we are following my above definition, since it's basically "you can succeed or keep trying over and over until you manage to do it" if we simplify it for the sake of the argument. Most ethnic religions also tend towards that way.

The "or else!" stems from people wanting the world to be just, and justice is often seen as a matter of reward vs punishment. Do right and get rewarded. Do wrong and get punished. So of course their belief systems will incorporate that, given that it's something integral to human psychology. And who knows, they might even be right.

Me? I know only that I know nothing, so off I go to find easy shitposting opportunities.

NINJAEDIT: Karma originated in Hinduism, not Buddhism. Some buddhist schools of thought do co-opt the concept as a sort of "score", much like it is in hinduism, but it's not particularly integral. Like Ipsil said, it's about "This is a horrible place, this is how you leave it"

EDIT 2: I would very much like to disclaim that the only specific religions I can actually discuss with great certainty is discordianism, by virtue of being discordian, and catholicism, because I've decided to focus my historical studies on it.

[Karnewarrior]

Could you give an example of a religion which isn't "do this or else!"?

I'm gonna regret posting here, because it's going to clutter my recent messages box, but Deism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

When it comes to Christian eschatology the Orthodox probably have the best conception - there is no fluffy heaven or torture pit hell, but a universal oneness with God that uplifts the saved because they love God and torments the unsaved because they hate God.

It's still creepy and atrocious and antihuman like most forms of Christian doctrine. But it's less contradictory than the Catholic and Protestant Dante horrorshow.

[Teneb]

Dante horrorshow.

Dante's depicition of hell is actually kind of tame. Too angry? You get to sit in a wait-deep lake of blood, forever. That's it.