Do take it too seriously? As in in a good or bad way or doesnt matter?
I think it's way more important that you decide.
If you aren't trying to ram your beliefs down the throat of anyone else, your probably like most people and ok. But it's never ok to condone harm to anyone. Too many really nice people condone evil practices just because they are religious.
The time has passed for that. Bad ideas are just BAD IDEAS.
Let's get rid of bad ideas.
To tell you honestly, I see more harm coming from the people. I always use a gun as an example. A gun does nothing oon its own. Its just a metal object (or whatever its made of), with bullets and a trigger. If someone uses that gun for ill purposes, that I have a problem with.
It's always the people who do harm. However, I am not here to discuss people who do harm. We should agree that they are wrong. But I am in here to discuss the ideas that might LEAD someone to hold a gun. Religions are one of those reasons.
With some people, they are comparing religion as if they are guns. I was never comfortable with that. People can use a butter knife to kill someone but its main use is for butter and so on and so forth.
Yes, your gun and knife analogy is a good one Religion is a gun, or a knife. We had BETTER be careful with them. People aren't careful ENOUGH... Maybe not EVERYONE should own a gun or a knife. Maybe we should talk about that.
The ONLY problem with religion is that there are HUGE problems with religion. Let's not pretend otherwise.
If I were to challenge a belief, Id challenge how the person comes to the belief he does. So instead of asking "does god exist?" Id ask more "How did you come to that conclusion? What in your brain (I wouldnt say that bluntly) click to where you feel a deity takes care of you?"
I like that approach. I use it. I tried to use it with you, and that failed.
I think it's a shame.
I mean, you can challenge a persons belief until they are blue in the face with all its inaccuracies. However, in all belief systems, if its that persons reality even If they see contradictions, if it works for them, they keep it. Just not many admit that they have some false beliefs (and even more so, false based on what? My view or objective? If objective, what is the common denominator Im basing my opinion on?)
1. If we are to be reasonable, the common denominator should be
GOOD reasoning.
2. If we are to care about reality, our common denominator should
be reality, and not fantasy.
Instead, if a believer is up for it, the only way to really get through is to challenge the psyche of that believer. Really get him to question why he believes what he does and even more important, how. Not to make him see his beliefs are false based on my views but question him about his views and see if he sees it himself IF it is false. I wouldnt know. I rarely do that because people are attached to their faith. Its not like debating what Plato meant by the Myth of the Cave type of thing.
Why do we need to protect their bad thinking? I say we need to EXPOSE their bad thinking, and help them think better. That they are too attached to their beliefs is THE PROBLEM.
It's true that most people are seldom interested in abandoning their cherished beliefs. They don't usually concern themselves if the beliefs are true.. but if they seem to be LIKELY true to them. It's just bad reasoning motivated by emotion and habit.
True. Havent you had anyone got far enough that you understand at least one religious concept and belief they had even though you disbelieve it?
I understand a lot of things. However, when they use these WORDS.. all we have are words. There is no REALITY attached, so all the meanings are subjective and ever changing, like your definition for "spirit".
You say it's "breath". Perfectly meaningless to call breath a "spirit". We know what breath is.. we STILL don't know why you would call it "SPIRIT" as if that meant something else, or special. I have NO idea what you mean.
Actually, it sounded like saracasm because I dont even think thats a word.
No idea what you are talking about. Sorry. If you don't quote me... then I can't read it, and your comment is meaningless. Sorry. You think that I might have been sarcastic because I use a word that I made up. How interesting. I make up a lot of words. I don't do so to be sarcastic.
If you think that something is sarcastic.. and it hurts, complain and I will take it back. I don't mean to be rude to anyone. People assume that I mean to be rude. I don't.
I can't help how people judge other people. That's on them.
I ran over natualist before. There is such thing as a spiritual natualist. Then you got all these isms etc. I never knew anything about pantheism, atheism, this ism, that ism, and all the ists until I came online.
I think ever since I came on RF Ive been in what 10 boxes already.
So, you seem to equate the natural world with a religious sensibility somehow.
It sounds nice, but a bit extravagant. I think I'm like that too, but I just don't go so far. I would not use religiously loaded words.. I would use a word like "awe" when I am expressing my emotional response to nature. Not "soul", not "spirit". It's time that we lose the bad thinking that religion represents. We can keep the art and the poetry. We need to lose the bad thinking.
But supernatualist doesnt make sense going by language. Closest I can think of to that is spiritual natualist but even that I dont claim because a lot of isms sounds like pop words.
Well, when I meant supernaturalist, I was thinking that you might believe in ghosts and that kind of thing...... you were talking about your family. I was asking if you had supernatural beliefs.
Like seeing someone who is: A neo-christo polytheistic, druidic pantheism with buddhist leanings and muslim practitioner.
I leave it alone.
Yeah, it really does get messy and vague. I call that "meaningless".
I thought they were interchangable and never questioned it. I just prefer the word spirit instead.
Yeah, both meaningless words are even used to define each other... they are really both quite meaningless. I went to the Wikipedia page for spiritual naturalism.. It actually talks about how each term is mostly meaningless to philosophers.
One meaningless word is interchangeable with any other meaningless word. "Blablabla" is interchangeable with "Bazinga." We could use both words a LOT, and like one or the other A LOT.. but they still have no meaning IN themselves. If I were to say that Blablabla means poo.. and Bazinga means toilet paper.. THEN they have meaning.
We can invent infinite meanings for the words. That's how meaningless words work, they can MEAN just about anything.
BREATH has meaning. SPIRIT has none.
One might ask what MORE meaning spirit has than breath... I'd say NO MEANING.
Breath has meaning, spirit has none.
Soul and spirit are mostly meaningless terms for something that people seem to
LIKE an awful lot. People seem to be willing to die and to kill for those terms and their particular kinds.. be it Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist... When people get TOO ATTACHED to their religious beliefs, trouble isn't far behind.
I don't OWN a gun.... I think it's asking for trouble. And I was fully trained to use one. I know the danger. I do NOT think that we would be safer if everyone owned a gun. I KNOW we would not be. I think that about religions. I KNOW we aren't safe on our planet due to religions. I don't think that everyone should have one.
Kitchen knives are WAY less dangerous than guns.
Religions are more like AUTOMATIC WEAPONS and WOMDs than kitchen knives.
Yes. I try not to as much. I did when I went into Catholicism and left it I asked a lot of questions. Now I understand why a lot of christians belief as they do, I just dont understand how.
The "how" is usually by :
1. Indoctrination. Not many people actually CHOOSE their religions. They are born into them.
2. Intellectual laziness. People usually stay with a belief instead of taking the considerable trouble to change them.
3. Confirmation bias and circular thinking.. this is actually encouraged by the religious authorities.
4. Denial. JUST no...
5. Offense. If someone even HINTS at challenging some people's beliefs, they either run away in a huff or attack.
6. Usually it all ends with " You just got to have faith". Faith has to be THE WORST method to acquire a belief.
On RF, a lot of religious just watch and read. Thats another annoying thing. I think there is what ten people who interact in this forum. Maybe you meet someone who doesnt mind steping out of the box.then remember, many people cant. Its not that they are dismissing it entirely, but the religion they adopted at adulthood or indoctrinated as a child or whenever is a part of their identity.
Something I find hard to accept and only understand it when I think of my own faith.
It's ok if someone just wants to read. That's how they can learn, and make their mind up. That's why I always try to write to that "Silent audience". If I can help them on their journey away from what they have been indoctrinated into.. I have done a good thing.
For all of you reading this... I was a believer once. Then I started to read, and learn. I didn't take anyone on his word, but demanded evidence. That demand for evidence is what killed the superstitions that I was taught were true.
So, when a believer is vague, or rude, or runs away in a puff of hurt... the invisible audience gets to see that. They also get to see that I am trying my best to be reasonable, fair, and not at all evil.
Let them decide who makes more sense. The religious person with a variable understanding that ... might be just about anything, and who is stuck defending pretty rotten stuff, or the atheist, who doesn't have an agenda but trying to find out the TRUTH?
Lets use the best methods, and be as honest as we can. I think that's the best we can do, and I think a lot of people will appreciate it. I know I did. That's why I'm an atheist now. I had questions, and some atheist took the time and trouble to answer each and every one of my questions honestly.
Religious people don't always do that... some get angry and end the discussion insulted at the mere IDEA of answering direct questions. That's NOT how to influence people. That's showing that their religious beliefs are... empty at best, and dangerous at worst.