What do you gain from criticism of a religious teaching you do not follow or believe in?

[oldbadger]

Where are these people? I want one of them to criticize paganism, so we can start a discussion. But they only talk about christianity and islam.

You should run more threads to tell us about paganism.

 

[oldbadger]

They could preach about law or love, but to preach both is showing the contradictions. I think they should focus on love. The Hebrew god is love, supposedly...

The Hebrew God was/is ferocious ....

 

[Ella S.]

I don't think the people you're referring to are misinformed. I think they are making a deliberate choice to trust in the "will of God" rather than the interdiction of man. I may not agree with it, but it is their choice to make. I realize it gets dicey when children are involved, or the mind-controlling effect of cults, but those issues can't be effectively addressed by informed debate. Cults are surprisingly impervious to that. I suspect only the force of law would be effective.
This is a very good and reasoned point. It IS the free and valid exchange of criticism that keeps this site 'in check' in many respects. But keep in mind, too, that this goes both ways. Just as we get the occasional religious zealots, here, we also get the anti-religious zealots. And they can be just as blindly anti-human, and harmful.
Please try to keep in mind that religious ideologies don't DO anything to anyone. We choose them, and then we choose to act in accord with them. WE do the doing. Not religion. We just do it in the name of religion. Often falsely.

I disagree that everyone chooses their religious ideologies. Most people are taught them by their parents and pressured into them by their local communities.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Was this when I said Ringo Starr couldn't drum his way out of a paper bag?

I'll admit that your snide remark about Ringo rubbed me the wrong way, but that's not what I was talking about. In hindsight, I wish I had remembered to include this kindhearted postcard from Macca to Ringo back in 1969, but I can't add it to my older post now.

Absolutely. In The Beatles Anthology, Macca talks about when he, George and John met Ringo, and how impressed they were with his drumming. They would go watch him play when he was still playing drums in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Ringo became the drummer two days after Pete Best was sacked by their manager, Brian Epstein, on August 16, 1962. John, Paul and George were put out with Pete because he kept missing some of their gigs, so they hired Ringo to fill in for him whenever he missed a performance.

 

[PureX]

I disagree that everyone chooses their religious ideologies. Most people are taught them by their parents and pressured into them by their local communities.

Yes, as children. But then they become adults, and are responsible for their own beliefs. I was raised Catholic and very easily rejected it in my early teens. I realize that cult religions are far more damaging to free will, but nevertheless, all children leave home and become autonomous eventually.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, as children. But then they become adults, and are responsible for their own beliefs. I was raised Catholic and very easily rejected it in my early teens. I realize that cult religions are far more damaging to free will, but nevertheless, all children leave home and become autonomous eventually.

Do you think we should refrain from debating harmful ideas simply because people are responsible for their own beliefs? Do you believe that this means that we have no duty to help assist others in making informed decisions?

How responsible can one truly be for their own misinformation and ignorance? I think that's an unrealistic standard.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, as children. But then they become adults, and are responsible for their own beliefs. I was raised Catholic and very easily rejected it in my early teens. I realize that cult religions are far more damaging to free will, but nevertheless, all children leave home and become autonomous eventually.

That's true, but it's not always the case. I say that because of my own experience leaving Christianity. As I've shared before, I'm an ideal example of how deeply a person can be brainwashed and controlled by a religion. My personal exodus from Christianity was very difficult and deeply painful for me, but looking back now, it was well worth it. I don't regret my decision to disavow my faith in God, but I wish I had forsaken it years ago instead of clinging to it for dear life. It can be difficult breaking away from a religion.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Hebrew God was/is ferocious ....

Yes, that too, so which of the two shall we believe? I choose the lovely part.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, that too, so which of the two shall we believe? I choose the lovely part.

If we believe the stories of God's atrocious behavior in the Bible, particularly in the OT, then we can honestly determine that he is a sadistic ruthless barbaric monster, who is undeniably guilty of innumerable crimes against humanity and guilty of global genocide.

 

[Sand Dancer]

If we believe the stories of God's atrocious behavior in the Bible, particularly in the OT, then we can honestly determine that he is a sadistic ruthless barbaric monster, who is undeniably guilty of innumerable crimes against humanity and global genocide.

Definitely. I think though that in those days and that area, local gods were ferocious and violent, so Yahweh had to be able to win any battles. The authors with that view conflict with the "God is love" authors. There are so many conflicting stories from different groups of authors, it's obvious that it was never meant to be a cohesive whole.

 

[PureX]

Do you think we should refrain from debating harmful ideas simply because people are responsible for their own beliefs? Do you believe that this means that we have no duty to help assist others in making informed decisions?

How responsible can one truly be for their own misinformation and ignorance? I think that's an unrealistic standard.

I'm a big proponent of sharing our ideas, and debating them. Not so much, though, in 'correcting' the ideas of others to make them align more with our own because we think our own are more correct. And I do think this is what's motivating a great deal of so called criticism and debate when it comes to the subject of religion and God.

As to religious 'beliefs', I think people are fools to 'believe in' anything regarding the nature or existence of God because it's fundamentally dishonest. But this is certainly not going to stop anyone from doing so, nor should it. So from my perspective, I think we need to respect other people's 'right to be wrong' in our eyes. And demand the same respect from them. And maybe even try to learn from them instead of trying to 'fix' them. We can share our opinions when asked, but otherwise, pushing them on people is disrespectful, and isn't likely to have a positive result, anyway. Just because you've been hurt by religious fundamentalism doesn't mean everyone else is being hurt by it, or that religious fundamentalism should be eradicated from the human experience. Just because I rejected Catholicism doesn't mean that anyone that does not reject it is a fool, or a tool. Our experience and understanding of the world is only our own.

 

[PureX]

That's true, but it's not always the case. I say that because of my own experience leaving Christianity. As I've shared before, I'm an ideal example of how deeply a person can be brainwashed and controlled by a religion. My personal exodus from Christianity was very difficult and deeply painful for me, but looking back now, it was well worth it. I don't regret my decision to disavow my faith in God, but I wish I had forsaken it years ago instead of clinging to it for dear life. It can be difficult breaking away from a religion.

Hey, I was an alcoholic for 20 years and no one made me drink a single drop. I chose to do it and believed my own BS excuses for years. The human mind can screw itself up , or be screwed up by others. But in the end the suffering that results will tell us that something's wrong. And we'll choose to face the poison honestly, or we'll blame others and hide and become toxic to everyone around us.

This kind of predicament befalls most humans in one form and fashion or another at some point in their lives. And it's when we get to find out who we really are, and what kind of person we're going to become. I got sober and stayed sober. But some of the folks I knew in recovery did not. They went back to the drugs and alcohol and will likely die that way (or already have). I'm not going to judge them. I could so easily have been one of them. On the other hand, I know lots of people who can drink alcohol or even use drugs without any problems at all, even though I cannot. And that isn't their fault, or mine, either. It just is the way it is.

I tend to look at religion the way I look at drinking alcohol. Lots of folks can engage in it and not be harmed, and can even be helped by it. Some people, however, will be destroyed by it if they happen to fall into it as a way of life. Some will not want it at all, for various reason. And some will devote their lives to it, to the exclusion of everything and everyone else, and never regret it! I'm not here to judge anyone's relationship with alcohol. But I am willing to share my experiences with it because it almost killed me. And it will kill some other people, and maybe I can help a few of those people get away from it, as I did.

But it's up to them. It's their experience and their choice. And I'm not here to judge or condemn them for their choices. And I already know there's no point in sharing my story with them unless they ask.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Was this when I said Ringo Starr couldn't drum his way out of a paper bag?

Lol that's hilarious.
Best John Lennon quote ever:
Reporter: "do you think Ringo Star is the best drummer in the world?
Lennon: "Ringo isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles"

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Lol that's hilarious.
Best John Lennon quote ever:
Reporter: "do you think Ringo Star is the best drummer in the world?
Lennon: "Ringo isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles"

The next time you post an alleged quote by someone, you should verify that it's actually true, and it hasn't been debunked.

https://twitter.com/marklewisohn/status/1039429309797158912

Did John Lennon really say Ringo “Wasn’t Even The Best Drummer In The Beatles”?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Well that's a bummer, I thought Lennon was funny

 

[RestlessSoul]

Was this when I said Ringo Starr couldn't drum his way out of a paper bag?

Steady on. Too far.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well that's a bummer, I thought Lennon was funny

He was, he had that corruscating Scouse wit. Smart arsed one-liners a speciality.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm a big proponent of sharing our ideas, and debating them. Not so much, though, in 'correcting' the ideas of others to make them align more with our own because we think our own are more correct. And I do think this is what's motivating a great deal of so called criticism and debate when it comes to the subject of religion and God.

As to religious 'beliefs', I think people are fools to 'believe in' anything regarding the nature or existence of God because it's fundamentally dishonest. But this is certainly not going to stop anyone from doing so, nor should it. So from my perspective, I think we need to respect other people's 'right to be wrong' in our eyes. And demand the same respect from them. And maybe even try to learn from them instead of trying to 'fix' them. We can share our opinions when asked, but otherwise, pushing them on people is disrespectful, and isn't likely to have a positive result, anyway. Just because you've been hurt by religious fundamentalism doesn't mean everyone else is being hurt by it, or that religious fundamentalism should be eradicated from the human experience. Just because I rejected Catholicism doesn't mean that anyone that does not reject it is a fool, or a tool. Our experience and understanding of the world is only our own.

I disagree. There is such a thing as objective truth and it can be approximated. I don't believe that anyone has the right to convince others to harm themselves and I see misinformation as something that needs to be corrected.

I suppose it comes down to values at that point, though. You and I have completely different values.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. There is such a thing as objective truth and it can be approximated. I don't believe that anyone has the right to convince others to harm themselves and I see misinformation as something that needs to be corrected.

I suppose it comes down to values at that point, though. You and I have completely different values.

A lot of people use their belief in "objective truth" very much the same way religious fundamentalists use their belief in 'inerrant theology': as an absolutist's hammer to pound all other beliefs and ideals into submission.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm a big proponent of sharing our ideas, and debating them.

So what is debate to you if not correcting the ideas of others? You make a statement. I disagree and rebut it. You find fault with the rebuttal and rebut that. If we do this in a cooperative manner according to the rules of reason in the case of dialectic, or the rules of trial in a courtroom, we attempt to come to a resolution of our differences whether with one another or a jury or formal debate audience.

Not so much, though, in 'correcting' the ideas of others to make them align more with our own because we think our own are more correct.

Do you not see that it is you who is attempting to correct the ideas of others to make them align more with yours, not the other way around?

Consider our discussion, yours and mine. I tell you about my strict empiricism and avoidance of unjustified belief (faith), and you tell me that my vista is too small, my method too narrow, and that I am missing something valuable because of it, often using words like materialistic paradigm and scientism.

I ask you what you think I'm missing, saying that if you're to convince me, you'll need to provide evidence that there is value there, which doesn't happen. But the point is, I never try to change your mind. You try to change mine. You condemn how I think and exhort me to change, but I don't do that with you ever. Have I ever tried to change your view of God, or ask you to be more of a critical thinker?

Au contraire. I have told you that even if I had that power, I wouldn't dream of undermining your worldview this late in life. If you were twenty or thirty, I would be willing to have that discussion with you. That's the age when I left faith and religion for strict empiricism and secular humanism, which was very helpful for me, and I assume would be for anybody else able to make that transition.

I don't know your age, but I also wouldn't try to change things for you, because I sense that you use these beliefs as a coping method to help you with problems you had in the past that you discuss openly. I'm assuming that you are a 12-stepper, and that your god belief is related to that. Who wants to undermine that?

I just tell you what I believe and why I believe it, and why your thinking is not for me, never for you to change to my ways. I have told you repeatedly that whatever you believe is fine with me, often in the form of the neighbor who bays at the full moon while shaking a stick at it in a religious ceremony, and my lack of interest in trying to change him unless he's too loud, then just make less noise.

I don't mind you trying to sell me on your ways, just pointing out that you try, and apparently aren't aware of it, nor that just because they disagree with you, that others aren't trying to change yours, at least not to my recollection, and certainly not me.