Why Arguing Religion is Pointless

Misadventure said:
So maybe the question isn't if it's pointless or not, but whether or not we are open-minded enough to talk about it like adults. How open-minded are y'all?
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for a long time. So long, it actually annoys me that I never receive constructive replies over anything I say on this topic when it was essentially a view pointing in the opposite direction to which the supposed 'adult' was meant to take rationally, not knee-jerk over it.

If we want to talk like adults so badly, then let's tackle the large issue of people constantly claiming they defend free speech BUT as long as it 'doesn't offend this particular group of people'. This needs to be completely stamped out if we are to have completely free speech. THEN we can all discuss topics like these as adults.

I view this thread and I see people dancing around with wishy washy talk of 'how we can address this'. I think you all know exactly how to talk about it, just say what's on your mind. What are you really THINKING?
 
JJJA said:
I've been saying this for a long time. So long, it actually annoys me that I never receive constructive replies over anything I say on this topic when it was essentially a view pointing in the opposite direction to which the supposed 'adult' was meant to take rationally, not knee-jerk over it.

If we want to talk like adults so badly, then let's tackle the large issue of people constantly claiming they defend free speech BUT as long as it 'doesn't offend this particular group of people'. This needs to be completely stamped out if we are to have completely free speech. THEN we can all discuss topics like these as adults.

I view this thread and I see people dancing around with wishy washy talk of 'how we can address this'. I think you all know exactly how to talk about it, just say what's on your mind. What are you really THINKING?
Click to expand...

Ironically, adult speech seems to be about suppressing the views of "others" most of the time. Children speak directly without subterfuge and covert manipulation. Perhaps we ought to speak as mature children, not as infantile adults.

I think a disproportionate number of replies to your posts in the last few weeks have been quite infantile.
 
Last edited:
JJJA said:
I've been saying this for a long time. So long, it actually annoys me that I never receive constructive replies over anything I say on this topic when it was essentially a view pointing in the opposite direction to which the supposed 'adult' was meant to take rationally, not knee-jerk over it.

If we want to talk like adults so badly, then let's tackle the large issue of people constantly claiming they defend free speech BUT as long as it 'doesn't offend this particular group of people'. This needs to be completely stamped out if we are to have completely free speech. THEN we can all discuss topics like these as adults.

I view this thread and I see people dancing around with wishy washy talk of 'how we can address this'. I think you all know exactly how to talk about it, just say what's on your mind. What are you really THINKING?
Click to expand...

What I REALLY think is religion is inert without a mind spark.

Religion doesn't do shit. People do.
 
Also if religion on its own is such a problem then why are there dead religions relegated to being history? Why aren't they jumping into people's heads and controlling them?

People stopped giving them their spark. Or maybe snuffed the spark out in some cases. But the ideas still exist yet they have no power. Religion as a concept does not just go away when people stop believing it therefore it is inaccurate to say religion as a concept is the problem or catalyst. It isn't.
 
I don't see people dancing around the issue. I see people wanting to talk but just aren't certain how to approach it. Most of us agree that we can *try* to be civil and discuss it but also most of us *know* that this discussion will end up in personal attack. When I asked the question how open minded are y'all, that was an invitation to get rid of what we label it and talk about it at its core with an open mind. I'm an infp... which means I'm probably the first one to get butthurt in discussions like these. I just wanted to remind people to be adult about it, not in what they say, but how they say it. It's not too much to ask to keep personal attacks at bay, is it?

I'm on the perspective that religion exists and has power because people give it that power and I think that we would be better off without it in any form. Especially when we start talking about creation and morality. Perhaps the majority of humans need a god, or an ancestor, or a paragon to remind them of simple rules in life, like don't be a dick, (ten commandments summed up) lol.
 
Misadventure said:
I don't see people dancing around the issue. I see people wanting to talk but just aren't certain how to approach it. Most of us agree that we can *try* to be civil and discuss it but also most of us *know* that this discussion will end up in personal attack. When I asked the question how open minded are y'all, that was an invitation to get rid of what we label it and talk about it at its core with an open mind. I'm an infp... which means I'm probably the first one to get butthurt in discussions like these. I just wanted to remind people to be adult about it, not in what they say, but how they say it. It's not too much to ask to keep personal attacks at bay, is it?

I'm on the perspective that religion exists and has power because people give it that power and I think that we would be better off without it in any form. Especially when we start talking about creation and morality. Perhaps the majority of humans need a god, or an ancestor, or a paragon to remind them of simple rules in life, like don't be a dick, (ten commandments summed up) lol.
Click to expand...

To be fair some religions say we don't need those things and that the answer is already within yourself/within everyone. Heck, from some Gnostic standpoints the traditional God/Demiurge is responsible for the corruption of religion and the strife that results from it, because it is the creator of the flawed material world and is flawed itself believing itself to be the one true God. It inherently corrupts spiritual pursuits by its very nature.
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
I agree. It seems that's when religion turned from a life philosophy towards control of the populace through an all knowing, all seeing entity.
 
So because of this singular entity as an embodiment of beliefs, I think this is what cut people off from another. Different cultures bred different gods and systems of beliefs and segregated one another because of it. Then somehow, it became ok to go directly against its teachings as long as it was against another system of beliefs. This is what I don't understand and would value some insight on.
 
Misadventure said:
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
I agree. It seems that's when religion turned from a life philosophy towards control of the populace through an all knowing, all seeing entity.
Click to expand...

Yup and it's not enough to just tell people they're going to hell. It takes a lot of legwork from individuals to create devout believers and practitioners, and they make it so ingrained in their societies that you at least have to pretend to believe. That is all the doing of people, and even when the forced conformity is removed the shell of it remains as it does in the US. A lot of people still need to say they are Christians even though a large number of them don't do anything or practice anything in particular. It's enough for them to say "I believe" and maybe, MAYBE go to church on Sunday because there's been a traditional compulsion to do so for so long. The actual practice is largely not even there in a lot of cases.
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Yeah, I saw that a lot growing up. I grew up Buddhist but in a largely Christian environment. They claimed they were Christian, would talk about god, would enforce Christianity in subtle ways, and yet they were the most hypocritical people I had ever met. There were few that actually practiced what they preached. What you describe is a form of indoctrination, no?
 
Misadventure said:
So because of this singular entity as an embodiment of beliefs, I think this is what cut people off from another. Different cultures bred different gods and systems of beliefs and segregated one another because of it. Then somehow, it became ok to go directly against its teachings as long as it was against another system of beliefs. This is what I don't understand and would value some insight on.
Click to expand...

I guess it's like gang territory. You let another gang operate on your turf and they will cut into your assets and poach your members.
 
Christianity will only be replaced by something else (and possibly something much worse) once it's completely rejected. What will fill the void? Hmm, I wonder.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
I guess it's like gang territory. You let another gang operate on your turf and they will cut into your assets and poach your members.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, thanks. But why would they go directly against their own teachings, i.e. killing, murder and mayhem? To enforce their own beliefs, maybe? To give power to their god? This is what I don't understand at all. If they all followed their own beliefs, practiced what they preached, there wouldn't be any of the behavior that's been seen throughout the centuries.
 
Misadventure said:
That makes sense, thanks. But why would they go directly against their own teachings, i.e. killing, murder and mayhem? To enforce their own beliefs, maybe? To give power to their god? This is what I don't understand at all. If they all followed their own beliefs, practiced what they preached, there wouldn't be any of the behavior that's been seen throughout the centuries.
Click to expand...

False believers. Some times imperfect and well intentioned believers, but mostly just false ones.
 
What makes a false believer? Why not just a stupid believer or a believer who isn't good at living a holy life?
 
Faith has always seemed just as restrictive as logic to me. If not, more so.

Faith involves boxing in oneself, in the sense that it is not receptive to new information that threatens to contradict or destabilise the position it wishes to maintain. This is the height of confirmation bias and, in my opinion, the true psychological motive behind all religion. Faith implies a desire for certainty and with that certainty comes security. A sort of spiritual safety net if you will. 'God' in that sense almost seems like the subconscious projection of the childhood parental figure. A reward/punishment system enforced by an externalised authority.

There is such a thing as bad faith. I recommend reading some Sartre.

That's not to say all faith is necessarily bad. In fact, it is a very good thing if it gets you through something difficult. But it also creates unnecesary anxiety and fear if taken too far. Not everything that goes against your current belief system is going to be negative. For all you know, it could be something more wonderful than you could have ever imagined.
 
We all have faith, whether it is regarding spirituality or not. See you in the morning.
 
hush said:
Like sprinkles said dogman, religion does not always teach morality.

The main issue however, is when religion is equated to morality. A university course on logic teaches logic - because logic is logic.

Religion is not morality. The two are independent from one another. Morality can be found within religion, but all morality is, is just being decent to your fellow human beings. And, perhaps, we could be more decent to our fellow human beings if religious beliefs didn't cloud our view of other people. That's not to say that everyone engages in this, hardly, and some would argue that religion is merely used as a scapegoat to commit atrocities that would be committed otherwise - but there are those who fervently believe, so fervently believe in their faiths that many have suffered and died for it.

Everyone should have the freedom to believe what they choose to believe, but it should never go so far as to be at the expense of others.

When I think morality, I don't think religion. I think looking past religion and truly, deeply connecting with people.

I also like discussing these things. Religion, faith, the concept of the soul. I think we should discuss it, and that it's worthwhile, because we should wonder, and should be curious. Because no matter how firmly we feel our convictions, there's so much out there that we don't know.
Click to expand...

Morality precedes religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top