Disclaimer: I'm an ex Christian. One of the biggest reasons I left the church and the faith altogther is pretty much because I'm pretty sure about 90% of people at Church didn't actually read the...
"Some Christians hated the @HeGetsUs ad because they think it's an insult to show us humbling ourselves to serve people with whom we disagree. Or they think serving = affirming sin. Reread the Sermon on the Mount. The culture war taught you to focus on fighting them, not Jesus," posted Justin Giboney, an attorney who co-hosts The Church Politics Podcast.
Disclaimer: I'm an ex Christian. One of the biggest reasons I left the church and the faith altogther is pretty much because I'm pretty sure about 90% of people at Church didn't actually read the bible lol. This article really highlights why I despise the way Christians go about their faith in general. It's mostly transactional, and really never lines up their actual teaching of "unconditional love".
There's a reason I see a lot of the phrase, "I like your Christ but I don't like Christians" lol
I've come to conclude that most self-identified Christians actually worship Satan. The modern Evangelical movement is defined primarily by hate against the other. Evangelicals spend little thought...
I've come to conclude that most self-identified Christians actually worship Satan. The modern Evangelical movement is defined primarily by hate against the other. Evangelicals spend little thought on helping the poor and downtrodden and most on spreading hate, misogyny, and their warped vision of in group power.
It's so fundamentally antithetical to the teachings of Christ, that I have concluded they're not actually worshipping Christ. They're Devil worshippers, devil worshippers who, in their hate, have managed to warp teachings of love and peace into hate and evil.
Their version of Christ and God is truly evil. In their world, God creates people to be gay or trans, and then He tortures them forever for acting the way He made them. I'm sorry, but no god that does this is worthy of worship. That's something Satan would do, not an all-loving God.
Most modern Christians worship a fundamentally evil entity. Most in fact worship Satan rather than God.
"The greatest trick the devil pulled wasn't convincing the world that he doesn't exist, it was convincing the world that he was their god." I wrote this as part of a poem about a dude meeting god...
"The greatest trick the devil pulled wasn't convincing the world that he doesn't exist, it was convincing the world that he was their god."
I wrote this as part of a poem about a dude meeting god in a bar. It was mostly dumb, surface-level venting that is typical of something written by an 20 year old idiot. But that line stuck with me, and I think about it often. Thinking about it more, just now, the idea that American Christians actually worship an evil entity is a belief that has been a core part of my thought processes for a very long time.
I wonder how pervasive that idea actually is. How many people would admit to harboring doubts about the goodness of the deity. Or how many people believe that god is at least not all-loving, but perhaps merely indifferent to suffering and evil.
I think your thought that most people actually worship an evil entity is more common among Christiandom than you might think. Not that God Himself is evil, but that we very often worship something...
I think your thought that most people actually worship an evil entity is more common among Christiandom than you might think. Not that God Himself is evil, but that we very often worship something evil and think that must be God.
In C S Lewis' Screwtape Letters, a senior demon (Screwtape, the narrator) counsels a junior demon (Wormwood) that when the assigned human (the patient) attends church (small c) it is a great opportunity to lead him to damnation:
I note with grave displeasure that your patient has become a Christian. [...] There is no need to despair; hundreds of these adult converts have been reclaimed after a brief sojourn in the Enemy’s camp and are now with us. All the habits of the patient, both mental and bodily, are still in our favour.
But fortunately [the true Church] is quite invisible to these humans. All your patient sees is the half-finished, sham Gothic erection on the new building estate. When he goes inside, he sees the local grocer with rather an oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book [...] When he gets to his pew and looks round him he sees just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided. You want to lean pretty heavily on those neighbours. [...who...] sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes [...] if the patient knows that the woman with the absurd hat is a fanatical bridge-player or the man with squeaky boots a miser and an extortioner—then your task is so much the easier. All you then have to do is to keep out of his mind the question “If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?” (letter 2)
The dreaded reverse question is this: "How can I, with all my dark sins and evil flaws, be actually worthy as a child of a good God?" (Short answer "Jesus")
But the demons have a more enticing answer, "Oh but you are holy and clean and worthy: look at those miserable, awful [whoever]: focus on their vileness and admire your own already safely earned sanctity!"
The trap is clear: make yourself to be the definition of holiness by hating the "other" dirty humans super hard. When someone forsakes the entire mission of Christ, that is, to love our enemy as ourselves, then we have moved onto the mission of hate, of judgement and desiring for the destruction and misery of those we deem lesser than ourselves. "loving the truth" or "standing up for the word" is just dog whistle for "hating other humans". More hate on "those people" means we must have more love for this god who hates "those people" as well.
It's subtle because it feels good. It's what I've done in this comment: make myself look better by hating on "those people".
There are many ancient Church Fathers and Mothers who have written on actual humility and how the battle to un-imagine ourselves as God and giving false worship to ourselves is a tough and lifelong struggle.
That's very interesting that you have had and kept this insight since your youth.
Gnostic Christianity (including Catharism and earlier traditions) teaches that the physical world is created and controlled by imperfect or even malevolent "deity"(s). You might find interest in...
Gnostic Christianity (including Catharism and earlier traditions) teaches that the physical world is created and controlled by imperfect or even malevolent "deity"(s). You might find interest in this concept.
To further this point, while early Christian gnostics drew their ideas from many sources, especially influential were the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul the Apostle—the latter of whom was...
To further this point, while early Christian gnostics drew their ideas from many sources, especially influential were the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul the Apostle—the latter of whom was so influential that the Ebionites flat out rejected him as a teacher.
The period of Roman occupation of the Levant was largely a continuation of the tumultuous Maccabean political landscape from the time of the Greeks. The dawn of the first millennium saw the Jewish "Fourth Philosophy" of Zealotry spurning Judas of Galilee to wage armed resistance against all foreigners and anyone seen helping them. Judaism's flirtation with Greek philosophy—often referred to as "Hellenization"—continued to be considered a dirty and profane influence on Jewish attempts at ethno-nationalist purity. As the idea of "god" likewise continued to expand up to and well passed the first century, people increasingly drew distinctions between it and the inseparable Judean nation-god that was so in vogue among the Zealots.
Of course, we all likely know that the Zealots would eventually seize power in the 60s CE, resulting in the First Jewish-Roman War, but shortly before that, Paul was teaching some curious ideas that were the primary influence of both gnostic and what would become main-line branches of Christianity (despite the latter's eventual attempts to repeatedly exterminate the former). The Christian gnostics drew on ideas such as:
ESV: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Custom: For to us is not the struggle against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the forces, against the cosmic powers of this the dark, against the pneuma of the evil in that above the sky.
ESV: In their case the god of this world (Gk: aiōnos) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of god.
Custom: In whom the god of the aeon has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to keep from radiating to them the light of the gospel of the glory of the Christ, who is the icon of god.
ESV: Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Custom: Why then the law? Because of transgressions it was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made, ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator, but the mediator is not the one, for god is one.
ESV: Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age (Gk: aiōnos) or of the rulers (Gk: archontōn) of this age (Gk: aiōnos), who are doomed to pass away; but we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of god, which god decreed before the ages (Gk: aiōnōn) for our glory. None of the rulers (Gk: archontōn) of this age (Gk: aiōnos) understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the lord of glory.
Custom: Yet wisdom we are speaking among the mature, wisdom yet not of the aeon nor of the archons of the aeon, who are to pass away; but we are speaking wisdom of god in mystery and concealment, which god designated before the aeons for our glory. None of the archons of the aeon has known this, for if they knew, they would not have had the master of glory crucified.
Paul's pre-gnostic archontics likely inspired the author of the Gospel of John to write:
ESV: Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine. Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler (Gk: archōn) of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
Custom: Yeshu answered and said, "Not through me has this voice come, but through you. Now is the judging of this world; now the archon of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I am lifted out of the earth, all shall draw toward myself."
So this distinction and problem of god-over-the-nation/world beneath a largely ignored and even higher power goes all the way back to some of the earliest Christian teachers and, indeed, further back into the core problems that monotheism has always struggled with in the midst of imperialism (but that's for another, much longer write-up). Hopefully this provides a few minor examples to inspire further exploration.
I hate to defend some of these people, but they really don't believe God made people to be trans or gay. If they believe anyone "did" it, what they believe is that gay and trans people are...
Their version of Christ and God is truly evil. In their world, God creates people to be gay or trans, and then He tortures them forever for acting the way He made them.
I hate to defend some of these people, but they really don't believe God made people to be trans or gay. If they believe anyone "did" it, what they believe is that gay and trans people are listening to the Devil's lies.
Yes. They believe that being gay or trans is a choice, and the choice is sinful. They don't believe that there is a biological component, otherwise it couldn't be a sin. I've mentioned before that...
Yes. They believe that being gay or trans is a choice, and the choice is sinful. They don't believe that there is a biological component, otherwise it couldn't be a sin.
I've mentioned before that it was a frequent radio topic for Dennis Prager to claim that homosexuality must be a choice because there is more of it measured in societies that accept it. Yes, reasonable people understand that when you criminalize or shame a quality you see less of it, but I guess many people (for example Dennis Prager) are not reasonable, or don't believe what they say.
Separate issue: Evangelicals are fascinated by the Devil and the concept of being talked into sin by a supernatural agent. It definitely is a convenient target of blame.
I like to counter that acceptance argument with lefthandedness acceptance. There are more people who are left handed now, because lefthandedness is no longer seen as shameful. Same thing as being...
I like to counter that acceptance argument with lefthandedness acceptance. There are more people who are left handed now, because lefthandedness is no longer seen as shameful. Same thing as being gay. There are more gay people now, because being gay is more accepted than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
You Guys Actually Worship Cthulhu expresses a similar sentiment regarding sexual abuse and the Evangelical church. Sam Thielman's other writing on Forever Wars is similarly good.
As Christians, we worship Jesus Christ. I don’t know who this god is who wants you to sacrifice the innocence of small children to him, but I don’t think he said “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” There are plenty of stories about an unimaginably powerful god who eats souls. They're not in the Bible, they’re in books by H. P. Lovecraft. They're written in the Supreme Alphabet. The only benefit to worshiping that god is that he’ll eat you last.
Sam Thielman's other writing on Forever Wars is similarly good.
The other day I was getting the mail and in it there was a book, titled "The Great Controversy." The cover features an American Flag and a Vatican City flag, with the US Capitol building and a...
The other day I was getting the mail and in it there was a book, titled "The Great Controversy." The cover features an American Flag and a Vatican City flag, with the US Capitol building and a "reflection" in the water that's actually St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Immediately I knew it was anti-Catholic/anti-papal garbage (I was raised Catholic, confirmed and all that, but I've always been an atheist).
And when I say "book," I don't mean like a little pamphlet; I mean like a nearly 500pg paperback!
My very first thought was, "Wow, this can't be cheap to send." And it was unsolicited, too? Then I wondered how many they sent...Well, apparently many across Kansas City received a copy (reddit link w/ photo).
What a fucking waste. Of paper, time, money, whatever. Instead of using this for helping the poor and sick as Jesus would've done, to actually effect some serious change in the world and reduce suffering, it was used to produce these books and mail them to strangers. Where they're likely going to end up in the recycling bin hopefully, but more likely the trash, over even on the street somewhere.
These people are the worst. The "foot fetish Jesus" commercials are in the same vein, honestly, but at the very least there's a positive message in there that actually aligns with Jesus' thoughts and beliefs.
I just got that too, but a heads up it's basically Seventh Day Adventists propaganda and their founding document. Unsure if it's actually anti-catholic
I just got that too, but a heads up it's basically Seventh Day Adventists propaganda and their founding document. Unsure if it's actually anti-catholic
While I can't claim to have read the book already (nor will I read it), I have a hard time believing it's not at least somewhat anti-Catholic given the imagery and even the back cover of the book....
While I can't claim to have read the book already (nor will I read it), I have a hard time believing it's not at least somewhat anti-Catholic given the imagery and even the back cover of the book. Which reads a bit like sealioning to me.
Of course, it's also possible that the cover is like this to simply generate controversy and interest. I definitely Wiki'd it and here I am talking about it. So it's working!
Holy hell I got one of those a couple months ago in the PNW, seems like they're doing waves of these across the country. I was similarly disgusted at the messaging and waste.
Holy hell I got one of those a couple months ago in the PNW, seems like they're doing waves of these across the country. I was similarly disgusted at the messaging and waste.
I saw a youtube movie, which actually has some fantastic sourcing and inteviews with experts, but wavers between clever and cringy in its delivery. It is kind of on brand for the style they are...
I saw a youtube movie, which actually has some fantastic sourcing and inteviews with experts, but wavers between clever and cringy in its delivery. It is kind of on brand for the style they are mimicing though...those terrible Bible School shorts about stories in the Bible. Satan's Guide To The Bible. Big fucking trigger warning if you went to Bible School, especially in an Evangelical area.
There is an inherint hypocracy between what is taught in seminary and what is taught to congressions.
There's a reason that the most religious areas of the country are also the ones pushing anti-intellectual policy.
Apart from the stained glass windows, the only decoration in my village’s church was a quote from some theologist painted on the side wall that, roughly translated, read “To be Christian is not to...
Apart from the stained glass windows, the only decoration in my village’s church was a quote from some theologist painted on the side wall that, roughly translated, read “To be Christian is not to speak of Christ, but to do as He did”. I wasn’t raised religiously, and the only reason I am even a member of the church is because it was just kind of the default way to go, but that quote is basically why I haven’t left it either. They do seem to try to live up to it, the church is one of the only institutions in the village that is actively trying to do community events and bring people together, and they’ve been extremely supportive to refugees from what I’ve been able to tell. I find it very sad that this seems to be quite an exceptional state of affairs though.
They seem kind of put out to not have an ultra-masculine conquerer god at the center of their religion. If there was a religion that worshipped "Thor, but with an AR and a pickup truck" they'd...
They seem kind of put out to not have an ultra-masculine conquerer god at the center of their religion. If there was a religion that worshipped "Thor, but with an AR and a pickup truck" they'd probably be a lot happier there.
Maybe that's why they've mythologized Trump so much, Jesus is such a bad fit for their values that they're trying to elevate someone else.
Rather unfortunately that's where a lot of the neonazi groups that adopt Norse imagery have gone. So they might be happier and that might also be worse.
Rather unfortunately that's where a lot of the neonazi groups that adopt Norse imagery have gone. So they might be happier and that might also be worse.
Those comments are hard to read, but I cant say I'm surprised.... basically comments boils down to His action was about how His humility and love is only reserved for the in group and the...
Those comments are hard to read, but I cant say I'm surprised....
basically comments boils down to His action was about how His humility and love is only reserved for the in group and the righteous. LIES
Jesus washed the feet also of Judas Iscariot, the man who travelled and dined and stayed with Him, and heard all the preaching for three years, and yet sold Him for 30 pieces of silver to be brutally tortured and publicly humiliated, hung naked on a tree to die so that all will know the person is cursed.
That Christ would wash even the feet of someone who was directly responsible for something so terrible He sweated blood in anguish over....
These modern Pharisees are always so fond of quoting John 3:16 but they always leave out the verse that immediately follows:
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Brothers and sisters and all/non-gendered siblings of Tildes, forgive me. These are my people and we have done much harm in the world.
Agree completely with you as a practicing Christian! The way these folks spew hatred while saying that's what Christianity stands for sickens me. I can disagree with someone's beliefs, politics,...
Agree completely with you as a practicing Christian! The way these folks spew hatred while saying that's what Christianity stands for sickens me.
I can disagree with someone's beliefs, politics, decisions etc, but still love them as a person. We are not called to judge people, but that's the opposite of what I'm seeing in the world now.
As the article doesn't seem to link to the ad in question, here is the organization's youtube video of the ad. The video in the article they link to is actually an ad from last year, which is why...
As the article doesn't seem to link to the ad in question, here is the organization's youtube video of the ad. The video in the article they link to is actually an ad from last year, which is why it's confusing.
It's both odd and not odd. It has somewhat tacky (AI-esque?) Norman-Rockwell-style still images of various pairs of people who might usually be seen as opposing in American cultural politics, and feet washing. It's a bit hard for me to identify all of them. In some sense, it's a familiar Christian message against a certain form of hate. It is somewhat refreshing, if coming from a culture very different than mine. It's not the confusing evangelical "have you heard about Jesus?" message that seem targeted to a first-century audience, and it's not a variety of openly hateful or judgemental things it could be.
However, the organizations behind the ads seem much more confusing. The "He Gets Us" ad campaign was, in prior years, paid for by the Servant Foundation. But the Servant Foundation is a donor-advised fund, which makes the motivations and discussions behind the ads murkier, and also perhaps makes seeing it as a single entity potentially misleading. It does appear that the Green family, behind Hobby Lobby, are major donors. The Servant Foundation is also a major donor to anti-LGBT and anti-abortion groups, some of whom are seen as outright hate groups, and is the group described in some of the linked articles.
So I have to wonder whether this ad, which is very different than last year's ad, has either had different people win out in debates over messaging, or is the result of the evangelicals behind it starting to see what modern political partisanship, and the alliance of far-right populists and Christian conservatives, has wrought, and starting to worry. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Even without views on women, abortion and LGBT matters necessarily changing, I think there is a question of priorities, judgment, hate, and the views and character of the people they're associating with that conservative evangelicals in the US really need to think about.
One other thing I would note, however. Since I can't identify all the scenes, I can't say this with certainty, but I get the impression that the feet-washer in each scene is the person on one 'side' of this societal divide. That might suggest that the messaging here is not inclusive or conciliatory toward progressive Christianity. The priest is a man (and presumably not gay). It seems implied that it is the person having the abortion having their feet washed, and that the person washing the feet is not someone who sees abortion as acceptable in Christianity. On watching this again, I actually think I may be at least somewhat wrong here. The first scene is definitely supposed to be the other way around, and several others are not so clear. There still don't appear to be any people who are both overtly Christian and overtly on the other side, however. This isn't saying that Episcopalians are Christians too...
Excellent research, I didn't realize it wasn't servant foundation behind this, and my original thought was more cynical: these ads were outrage bait to whip the vote. Glad to see that....may...
Excellent research, I didn't realize it wasn't servant foundation behind this, and my original thought was more cynical: these ads were outrage bait to whip the vote. Glad to see that....may not(?) be the case, and I can't say that I hate inclusive ads even if they may motivate intolerant people as a reaction. Not much you can do about that. Honestly, maybe it'd be a good thing if people who identify as Christian would....go to church sometimes or learn more about the faith. It's weird that there is already so much dichotomy politically between certain factions of Christianity, Protestants lean conservative while Catholics lean democrat (partially probably demographics of each driving this). Still odd, and it's an odd ad to see on the super bowl, but I'm also weirded out how religious football is in general. (compared to Baseball, which ostensibly is also very Christian, but certainly more Catholic I suppose)
I think we have to take the motivation of the ad as at least not being entirely contrary to its apparent message, as being outrage bait would be. And looking at it, it does seem to be critical of...
I think we have to take the motivation of the ad as at least not being entirely contrary to its apparent message, as being outrage bait would be. And looking at it, it does seem to be critical of current conservative Christian actions, with the anti-abortion protestors in the background of the abortion clinic being depicted as the hateful contrast to the foregrounded foot-washer, who is not depicted as being part of them.
Christianity has, of course, had rather significant divisions for a very long time. I'm not sure to what extent the traditional political divisions in the US remain the same. Catholicism in the US, at least devout rather than cultural Catholicism, seems to have moved in a distinctly conservative direction, with an obsessive focus on sexuality, gender, and abortion; it seems to be moving in this direction in opposition to the Pope, and to Catholicism elsewhere, though even Catholicism outside the US remains relatively conservative on these points. It may be there is a distinction to be made here between Latino and non-Latino Catholics, but there were good reasons for the Republican political strategy of trying to have the party focus on Latin-American social conservatives, the strategy that Trump opposed and destroyed.
Significant parts of Mainstream Protestantism seems to be either fighting wars to move toward more social liberalism or progressivism. After a messy schism with social conservatives departing, that ended up largely with court victories for the Church, Episcopal churches are at this point either strongly anti-Republican or very careful about what they say, and some of the more vocal churches are almost problematically partisan in their progressivism. The United Methodist Church is having a schism right now in its move toward LGBT acceptance. But then, Mainstream Protestantism hasn't made up a major portion of American Protestants for some time, particularly devout ones.
The (non-Episcopal) evangelicals and fundamentalists are, of course, very socially conservative, and seem to be the real driving force behind much of the conversation around Christianity in the US. But my understanding is that their focus on politics is actually rather recent, and can be dated perhaps to the 1970s and Falwell's decision to become politically involved against Baptist tradition.
Delusional people fighting each other about whose delusions are better. Or lying that they have delusions for the purpose of control/power. This is the gist of pretty much all of the civilizations...
Delusional people fighting each other about whose delusions are better. Or lying that they have delusions for the purpose of control/power. This is the gist of pretty much all of the civilizations humans create and destroy.
So to see two “sides” arguing that their delusions are better is just…delusional? It’s difficult to argue delusions. Still, for whatever reason delusional people keep wanting delusional people in power to enforce their delusions being better than someone else’s delusions.
Hopefully whatever new civilization comes along after we destroy ours won’t be mired in such silly and worthless dogma but I somehow doubt it…
This is pretty dismissive of a lot of folks who find something of value in faith. It's fine if you don't believe, but I don't think it's helpful to be dismissive or scornful toward those who do. I...
This is pretty dismissive of a lot of folks who find something of value in faith. It's fine if you don't believe, but I don't think it's helpful to be dismissive or scornful toward those who do. I get the anger, believe me, but I don't think this is the way.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. I feel that being careful not to hurt people’s feelings about things that aren’t real and let it propogate has led us to our own destruction. If anything, people...
Respectfully, I have to disagree. I feel that being careful not to hurt people’s feelings about things that aren’t real and let it propogate has led us to our own destruction. If anything, people should be called out on it more. These outraged conservatives who weaponize “faith” are allowed to weaponize it because believing in the supernatural (and only the “correct” supernatural thing) has been normalized.
Any ideological movement can fall prey to people who weaponize the sincerely held beliefs of its adherents. You only have to look at the New Athiesm to Alt-Right pipeline or the increasing...
Any ideological movement can fall prey to people who weaponize the sincerely held beliefs of its adherents. You only have to look at the New Athiesm to Alt-Right pipeline or the increasing right-wing tendencies of techno-libertarians to see that.
Interesting read. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of those people before and they sound like a sour read. Charlatans on either side of “faith”. Which is why I ascribe to questioning any sort of...
Interesting read. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of those people before and they sound like a sour read. Charlatans on either side of “faith”. Which is why I ascribe to questioning any sort of expert, leader or movement. These fellows seem like they enjoy the power/fellowship/authority/ego-stroking/control/opinion that their adversaries also enjoy. Charlatans are gonna charlatan.
What they seem to all have in common on both sides by and large is their gender…but I’ll save my condemnation of the patriarchy and structures of power for another thread :)
I'm a little surprised you haven't heard of Dawkins. Harris and Pinker were probably a little less well known. Maybe I'm just old, but these guys were all over reddit in the early days. A lot of...
I'm a little surprised you haven't heard of Dawkins. Harris and Pinker were probably a little less well known. Maybe I'm just old, but these guys were all over reddit in the early days. A lot of the worst of the "New Atheist" movement happened on reddit and similar sites. I think New Atheism, Gamergate, and some of the more troubling pockets of the online rationalist community are all examples of how groups of people are just vulnerable to manipulation, I really don't think a belief in the supernatural has much to do with it.
I’m not really “involved” with being an atheist so I don’t really pay any attention to things like that. I grew up with being forced into religion and came away with my own opinions about it in...
I’m not really “involved” with being an atheist so I don’t really pay any attention to things like that. I grew up with being forced into religion and came away with my own opinions about it in the ‘80s from my own worldview and experience. I wasn’t aware of “New Atheism” nor “Gamergate” till now :)
If you are hung up on the physical reality of a deity, you are nowhere near influencing the opinion of any dedicated believer. All it does is come across like someone eager to show off their...
If you are hung up on the physical reality of a deity, you are nowhere near influencing the opinion of any dedicated believer. All it does is come across like someone eager to show off their latest shocking joke. Anyone outside the narrow strawman you have in mind already has rebuttals that make "you're delusional" look as convincing as a middle finger. I suspect the only feelings you hurt are those of fools like me who care about silly things like "being nice", since the people who you think you're talking to couldn't care less about your opinion.
This is my experience as well. I left church a couple of years ago but a few of my friends are still from church. I find it much easier to talk to them when I'm not telling them that they're...
This is my experience as well. I left church a couple of years ago but a few of my friends are still from church. I find it much easier to talk to them when I'm not telling them that they're delusional.
I never said “physical” nor am I trying to influence someone with my opinion - I’m definitely not that good. I can’t even influence myself :D However, this is a message board where people post...
I never said “physical” nor am I trying to influence someone with my opinion - I’m definitely not that good. I can’t even influence myself :D However, this is a message board where people post their thoughts and opinions so I posted mine as did you. I’m not going to self-censor because it’s going to make someone uncomfortable about something as abstract as religion.
So you feel that way, and justify your comment with it, but not because you believe it? Anyway, sure. Not asking you to censor your real beliefs, just maybe keep some self-awareness. "Billions of...
I feel that being careful not to hurt people’s feelings about things that aren’t real and let it propogate has led us to our own destruction.
So you feel that way, and justify your comment with it, but not because you believe it?
Anyway, sure. Not asking you to censor your real beliefs, just maybe keep some self-awareness. "Billions of people keep doing these things that people have done throughout history, if they stopped being delusional, we wouldn't have these problems!" is a really self-centered and oversimplifying way of looking at the breadth of thought you've discounted.
I believe it is one of the major pillars of our destruction but definitely not the only thing. I didn’t say it was? I’m completely open to the idea that if it had never existed something else...
I believe it is one of the major pillars of our destruction but definitely not the only thing. I didn’t say it was? I’m completely open to the idea that if it had never existed something else would have probably taken its place to control and manipulate the masses at this scale.
I get you’re angry but you’re extrapolating way too much from my comments.
I'm not angry, to be clear. We just have very different stances, and I'm telling you how your comments read to me. I can sit here and insert the couching phrases for myself and come to a more...
I'm not angry, to be clear. We just have very different stances, and I'm telling you how your comments read to me. I can sit here and insert the couching phrases for myself and come to a more compassionate reading, and I have. But others might not, and some certainly won't. There's a time and place for "you get what I mean", but making polemics is dangerous with that attitude.
Apologies if I came across as attacking you, personally, because that was not intended.
I appreciate the feedback. I’m not very good with “reading a room” or keeping my opinions thoughtful. I am a bit too personally passionate about this topic so it probably wasn’t going to go well,...
I appreciate the feedback. I’m not very good with “reading a room” or keeping my opinions thoughtful. I am a bit too personally passionate about this topic so it probably wasn’t going to go well, in hindsight. :)
Who is anyone to say "it's not real?" The usual response is "the existence of (God/a god/any god) cannot be proved." The movie Contact is about faith (not aliens, and not SETI), and there's a...
Who is anyone to say "it's not real?" The usual response is "the existence of (God/a god/any god) cannot be proved."
The movie Contact is about faith (not aliens, and not SETI), and there's a fantastic exchange between a hardcore scientist and a religious adherent. When she raises that line of defense, that God cannot be proved, he asks her to "prove" her love for her dead father.
She can't. No one can prove something like "love." Or "hate" for that matter. They can demonstrate they still feel love, or hate, but that's through actions. They're not proving anything, just demonstrating that they're willing to do something others will perceive as kind, or generous, or thoughtful, or caring, or some other nebulously defined "good" act. Which isn't proof, because people change their minds constantly. Today someone is "their friend", but tomorrow they need something their "friend" has, and now they're not friends anymore.
Is it less damaging if an absolutely disinterested person does evil, despicable things? A sociopath, for example, might not think at all about someone he murders. Lots of people, all across the world, do evil things every day and will claim with a completely straight face "I'm just doing my job" or "I'm just following orders."
Does that make it less evil, to say someone else ordered you to do it? To claim you're not personally invested, that you don't actually care as a human one way or another? I wonder how much anyone being beaten or evicted or left without might care about the motives of the person beating them, or driving them from a home, or ensuring they can't access food or medical care.
Anyone who wants to think very, very, very poorly of someone religious, who uses that religion as an excuse, crutch, and weapon against "unbelievers", I'm fully behind. Raise the pitchforks, light the torches, beat that bullshit back. It's a scourge upon humanity, when someone will weaponize any sort of belief in pursuit of violence.
Which science does too. Not just "faith". Those evil actors should be tarred with the same brush some are so eager to slather "faithful with.
There are circles of so-called logical, scientific minded folks in favor of genetically eliminating various traits, even various peoples, from humanity. That's weaponizing science. Who are we to say someone with autism, or deafness, or heart disease, doesn't deserve to live? That those people might not have anything to contribute to humanity?
And that's just the easy example. Militant atheists exist just as much as militant faithful.
Religion, like everything else of humanity, gets corrupted by humanity. Twisted and brought under someone's control as a way to control other humans. Sometimes it's a pope or bishop, sometimes it's an iman, sometimes a rabbi. But sometimes it's a scientist, sometimes it's an industrialist, or a professor, or an inventor. Evil and greed exists outside the scope of faith, and if a magic wand were to be waved, eliminating all faith from the world, we would just find other reasons to hate, lie, take, and kill.
Faith is just an excuse sometimes used by evil people. Same as capitalism is the excuse to dehumanize others, turn a blind eye to their pain and neglect. Same as classists will use privilege and the accident of birth as the excuse to exclude and belittle others.
Faith isn't the problem. People are. Target people who reveal themselves by bad actions, not nebulous things like "faith" or "science."
Punish actions. If someone rises from prayer having decided their god calls upon them to wreak violence upon others, that's a problem. That they prayed isn't the problem. If a scientist emerges from her lab intent on using her latest discovery to lay waste to those in her way, her actions aren't any more pure, any less evil, when she does them claiming it's in the name of science.
The hostilities towards religions will get a lot better in the USA when Christians accept that they exist in a secular state and their beliefs are not the law of the land for a reason. Oh and stop...
The hostilities towards religions will get a lot better in the USA when Christians accept that they exist in a secular state and their beliefs are not the law of the land for a reason. Oh and stop channeling money into anti-gay and anti-woman propaganda.
It's fine to find value in faith or whatnot. It's not fine to demand that everyone else adhere to the principles of your religion. Or get special treatment to "opt out" of the secular options and take your funding with you.
No disagreement there. I was merely outlining the terms, not stating how quickly or easily they'd be accepted. It's almost like the major problem is the money/power the organizations wield, rather...
No disagreement there. I was merely outlining the terms, not stating how quickly or easily they'd be accepted.
It's almost like the major problem is the money/power the organizations wield, rather than the beliefs of the members themselves (though those things do end up bleeding together).
Not the parent. While I get what you say, I believe there is some merit to the statement that "religion is the opium of the people". From where I stand, I can't really see than many religious...
Not the parent.
While I get what you say, I believe there is some merit to the statement that "religion is the opium of the people". From where I stand, I can't really see than many religious people whose faith underpins their will to help others. More often they have resigned themselves. They usually try to convince both their close ones as well as themselves that "everything is as he intended" while the world around them is burning.
The other problem with religious faith is that believers are accustomed to, well, believing. Once you start ascribing properties to a non-existent being, you can believe in anything. And if you don't (you might have your own idea about what Jesus actually stands for or whatever), that usually means you don't really believe in anything external. You believe in your own ideals first and project them to some external entity for convenience second.
And lastly, mistakenly believing that some things are immutable and given from an external entity kind of complicates negotiations with other people when they try to tell you that those things are, in fact, negotiable and fully in your hands. You can't exactly go and ask your personal Jesus and you do not allow yourself to give the answer.
So yeah, there are some good reasons for just sighing, rolling ones eyes and uttering "do people seriously still believe that crap?" when the matter of benefits of one's religious faith are brought up. Religions along with their followers kinda had couple thousand years to prove that their way is actually better and since in 2024 Christ is still being used to condemn other people I dare say they have utterly failed.
And to anyone who dares to think "but what if it's a person believing on their own, not being a part of organized religion or anything?"; that's not how it works, is it? In absolute majority of such cases, those people were dragged to the church by their parents, indoctrinated and then slowly drifted away in their later life because nobody forced them to attend anymore. I find it pretty creepy that there are people who delude kids into blindly believing stuff and who do so overtly, in an organized fashion.
Honestly religion already gets too much of a pass as it is. People just don't notice because they're so used to it. A politician saying "I believe a mystical being with magic powers has set down a...
Honestly religion already gets too much of a pass as it is. People just don't notice because they're so used to it.
A politician saying "I believe a mystical being with magic powers has set down a list of arbitrary rules and behaviors I need to follow. This will be a major factor in all my policy decisions" should be a major concern. It shouldn't be any different that saying he was going to be taking instruction from a ghost, aliens, horoscopes, Santa etc.
Yet somehow not only is this considered completely ok. It will actually hurt your chances of getting elected if you say you won't do this.
Disclaimer: I'm an ex Christian. One of the biggest reasons I left the church and the faith altogther is pretty much because I'm pretty sure about 90% of people at Church didn't actually read the bible lol. This article really highlights why I despise the way Christians go about their faith in general. It's mostly transactional, and really never lines up their actual teaching of "unconditional love".
There's a reason I see a lot of the phrase, "I like your Christ but I don't like Christians" lol
I've come to conclude that most self-identified Christians actually worship Satan. The modern Evangelical movement is defined primarily by hate against the other. Evangelicals spend little thought on helping the poor and downtrodden and most on spreading hate, misogyny, and their warped vision of in group power.
It's so fundamentally antithetical to the teachings of Christ, that I have concluded they're not actually worshipping Christ. They're Devil worshippers, devil worshippers who, in their hate, have managed to warp teachings of love and peace into hate and evil.
Their version of Christ and God is truly evil. In their world, God creates people to be gay or trans, and then He tortures them forever for acting the way He made them. I'm sorry, but no god that does this is worthy of worship. That's something Satan would do, not an all-loving God.
Most modern Christians worship a fundamentally evil entity. Most in fact worship Satan rather than God.
"The greatest trick the devil pulled wasn't convincing the world that he doesn't exist, it was convincing the world that he was their god."
I wrote this as part of a poem about a dude meeting god in a bar. It was mostly dumb, surface-level venting that is typical of something written by an 20 year old idiot. But that line stuck with me, and I think about it often. Thinking about it more, just now, the idea that American Christians actually worship an evil entity is a belief that has been a core part of my thought processes for a very long time.
I wonder how pervasive that idea actually is. How many people would admit to harboring doubts about the goodness of the deity. Or how many people believe that god is at least not all-loving, but perhaps merely indifferent to suffering and evil.
I think your thought that most people actually worship an evil entity is more common among Christiandom than you might think. Not that God Himself is evil, but that we very often worship something evil and think that must be God.
In C S Lewis' Screwtape Letters, a senior demon (Screwtape, the narrator) counsels a junior demon (Wormwood) that when the assigned human (the patient) attends church (small c) it is a great opportunity to lead him to damnation:
The dreaded reverse question is this: "How can I, with all my dark sins and evil flaws, be actually worthy as a child of a good God?" (Short answer "Jesus")
But the demons have a more enticing answer, "Oh but you are holy and clean and worthy: look at those miserable, awful [whoever]: focus on their vileness and admire your own already safely earned sanctity!"
The trap is clear: make yourself to be the definition of holiness by hating the "other" dirty humans super hard. When someone forsakes the entire mission of Christ, that is, to love our enemy as ourselves, then we have moved onto the mission of hate, of judgement and desiring for the destruction and misery of those we deem lesser than ourselves. "loving the truth" or "standing up for the word" is just dog whistle for "hating other humans". More hate on "those people" means we must have more love for this god who hates "those people" as well.
It's subtle because it feels good. It's what I've done in this comment: make myself look better by hating on "those people".
There are many ancient Church Fathers and Mothers who have written on actual humility and how the battle to un-imagine ourselves as God and giving false worship to ourselves is a tough and lifelong struggle.
That's very interesting that you have had and kept this insight since your youth.
Gnostic Christianity (including Catharism and earlier traditions) teaches that the physical world is created and controlled by imperfect or even malevolent "deity"(s). You might find interest in this concept.
To further this point, while early Christian gnostics drew their ideas from many sources, especially influential were the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul the Apostle—the latter of whom was so influential that the Ebionites flat out rejected him as a teacher.
The period of Roman occupation of the Levant was largely a continuation of the tumultuous Maccabean political landscape from the time of the Greeks. The dawn of the first millennium saw the Jewish "Fourth Philosophy" of Zealotry spurning Judas of Galilee to wage armed resistance against all foreigners and anyone seen helping them. Judaism's flirtation with Greek philosophy—often referred to as "Hellenization"—continued to be considered a dirty and profane influence on Jewish attempts at ethno-nationalist purity. As the idea of "god" likewise continued to expand up to and well passed the first century, people increasingly drew distinctions between it and the inseparable Judean nation-god that was so in vogue among the Zealots.
Of course, we all likely know that the Zealots would eventually seize power in the 60s CE, resulting in the First Jewish-Roman War, but shortly before that, Paul was teaching some curious ideas that were the primary influence of both gnostic and what would become main-line branches of Christianity (despite the latter's eventual attempts to repeatedly exterminate the former). The Christian gnostics drew on ideas such as:
Eph. 6:12
and
2 Cor. 4:4
and
Gal. 3:19-20
and
1 Cor. 2:6-8
Paul's pre-gnostic archontics likely inspired the author of the Gospel of John to write:
John 12:30-32
So this distinction and problem of god-over-the-nation/world beneath a largely ignored and even higher power goes all the way back to some of the earliest Christian teachers and, indeed, further back into the core problems that monotheism has always struggled with in the midst of imperialism (but that's for another, much longer write-up). Hopefully this provides a few minor examples to inspire further exploration.
good to see you around Salmon!
I hate to defend some of these people, but they really don't believe God made people to be trans or gay. If they believe anyone "did" it, what they believe is that gay and trans people are listening to the Devil's lies.
Yes. They believe that being gay or trans is a choice, and the choice is sinful. They don't believe that there is a biological component, otherwise it couldn't be a sin.
I've mentioned before that it was a frequent radio topic for Dennis Prager to claim that homosexuality must be a choice because there is more of it measured in societies that accept it. Yes, reasonable people understand that when you criminalize or shame a quality you see less of it, but I guess many people (for example Dennis Prager) are not reasonable, or don't believe what they say.
Separate issue: Evangelicals are fascinated by the Devil and the concept of being talked into sin by a supernatural agent. It definitely is a convenient target of blame.
I like to counter that acceptance argument with lefthandedness acceptance. There are more people who are left handed now, because lefthandedness is no longer seen as shameful. Same thing as being gay. There are more gay people now, because being gay is more accepted than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
You Guys Actually Worship Cthulhu expresses a similar sentiment regarding sexual abuse and the Evangelical church.
Sam Thielman's other writing on Forever Wars is similarly good.
The other day I was getting the mail and in it there was a book, titled "The Great Controversy." The cover features an American Flag and a Vatican City flag, with the US Capitol building and a "reflection" in the water that's actually St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Immediately I knew it was anti-Catholic/anti-papal garbage (I was raised Catholic, confirmed and all that, but I've always been an atheist).
And when I say "book," I don't mean like a little pamphlet; I mean like a nearly 500pg paperback!
My very first thought was, "Wow, this can't be cheap to send." And it was unsolicited, too? Then I wondered how many they sent...Well, apparently many across Kansas City received a copy (reddit link w/ photo).
What a fucking waste. Of paper, time, money, whatever. Instead of using this for helping the poor and sick as Jesus would've done, to actually effect some serious change in the world and reduce suffering, it was used to produce these books and mail them to strangers. Where they're likely going to end up in the recycling bin hopefully, but more likely the trash, over even on the street somewhere.
These people are the worst. The "foot fetish Jesus" commercials are in the same vein, honestly, but at the very least there's a positive message in there that actually aligns with Jesus' thoughts and beliefs.
I just got that too, but a heads up it's basically Seventh Day Adventists propaganda and their founding document. Unsure if it's actually anti-catholic
While I can't claim to have read the book already (nor will I read it), I have a hard time believing it's not at least somewhat anti-Catholic given the imagery and even the back cover of the book. Which reads a bit like sealioning to me.
Of course, it's also possible that the cover is like this to simply generate controversy and interest. I definitely Wiki'd it and here I am talking about it. So it's working!
Holy hell I got one of those a couple months ago in the PNW, seems like they're doing waves of these across the country. I was similarly disgusted at the messaging and waste.
I got one as well. Straight into the recycling bin.
I saw a youtube movie, which actually has some fantastic sourcing and inteviews with experts, but wavers between clever and cringy in its delivery. It is kind of on brand for the style they are mimicing though...those terrible Bible School shorts about stories in the Bible. Satan's Guide To The Bible. Big fucking trigger warning if you went to Bible School, especially in an Evangelical area.
There is an inherint hypocracy between what is taught in seminary and what is taught to congressions.
There's a reason that the most religious areas of the country are also the ones pushing anti-intellectual policy.
Apart from the stained glass windows, the only decoration in my village’s church was a quote from some theologist painted on the side wall that, roughly translated, read “To be Christian is not to speak of Christ, but to do as He did”. I wasn’t raised religiously, and the only reason I am even a member of the church is because it was just kind of the default way to go, but that quote is basically why I haven’t left it either. They do seem to try to live up to it, the church is one of the only institutions in the village that is actively trying to do community events and bring people together, and they’ve been extremely supportive to refugees from what I’ve been able to tell. I find it very sad that this seems to be quite an exceptional state of affairs though.
They seem kind of put out to not have an ultra-masculine conquerer god at the center of their religion. If there was a religion that worshipped "Thor, but with an AR and a pickup truck" they'd probably be a lot happier there.
Maybe that's why they've mythologized Trump so much, Jesus is such a bad fit for their values that they're trying to elevate someone else.
Rather unfortunately that's where a lot of the neonazi groups that adopt Norse imagery have gone. So they might be happier and that might also be worse.
Those comments are hard to read, but I cant say I'm surprised....
basically comments boils down to His action was about how His humility and love is only reserved for the in group and the righteous. LIES
Jesus washed the feet also of Judas Iscariot, the man who travelled and dined and stayed with Him, and heard all the preaching for three years, and yet sold Him for 30 pieces of silver to be brutally tortured and publicly humiliated, hung naked on a tree to die so that all will know the person is cursed.
That Christ would wash even the feet of someone who was directly responsible for something so terrible He sweated blood in anguish over....
These modern Pharisees are always so fond of quoting John 3:16 but they always leave out the verse that immediately follows:
Brothers and sisters and all/non-gendered siblings of Tildes, forgive me. These are my people and we have done much harm in the world.
Agree completely with you as a practicing Christian! The way these folks spew hatred while saying that's what Christianity stands for sickens me.
I can disagree with someone's beliefs, politics, decisions etc, but still love them as a person. We are not called to judge people, but that's the opposite of what I'm seeing in the world now.
As the article doesn't seem to link to the ad in question, here is the organization's youtube video of the ad. The video in the article they link to is actually an ad from last year, which is why it's confusing.
It's both odd and not odd. It has somewhat tacky (AI-esque?) Norman-Rockwell-style still images of various pairs of people who might usually be seen as opposing in American cultural politics, and feet washing. It's a bit hard for me to identify all of them. In some sense, it's a familiar Christian message against a certain form of hate. It is somewhat refreshing, if coming from a culture very different than mine. It's not the confusing evangelical "have you heard about Jesus?" message that seem targeted to a first-century audience, and it's not a variety of openly hateful or judgemental things it could be.
However, the organizations behind the ads seem much more confusing. The "He Gets Us" ad campaign was, in prior years, paid for by the Servant Foundation. But the Servant Foundation is a donor-advised fund, which makes the motivations and discussions behind the ads murkier, and also perhaps makes seeing it as a single entity potentially misleading. It does appear that the Green family, behind Hobby Lobby, are major donors. The Servant Foundation is also a major donor to anti-LGBT and anti-abortion groups, some of whom are seen as outright hate groups, and is the group described in some of the linked articles.
However... the Servant Foundation isn't behind the ads this year. Instead, it's a different organization, 'Come Near'. Also very corporate-tied: the CEO is a former Wendy's and Domino's Pizza executive.
So I have to wonder whether this ad, which is very different than last year's ad, has either had different people win out in debates over messaging, or is the result of the evangelicals behind it starting to see what modern political partisanship, and the alliance of far-right populists and Christian conservatives, has wrought, and starting to worry. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Even without views on women, abortion and LGBT matters necessarily changing, I think there is a question of priorities, judgment, hate, and the views and character of the people they're associating with that conservative evangelicals in the US really need to think about.
One other thing I would note, however. Since I can't identify all the scenes, I can't say this with certainty, but I get the impression that the feet-washer in each scene is the person on one 'side' of this societal divide. That might suggest that the messaging here is not inclusive or conciliatory toward progressive Christianity. The priest is a man (and presumably not gay). It seems implied that it is the person having the abortion having their feet washed, and that the person washing the feet is not someone who sees abortion as acceptable in Christianity.On watching this again, I actually think I may be at least somewhat wrong here. The first scene is definitely supposed to be the other way around, and several others are not so clear. There still don't appear to be any people who are both overtly Christian and overtly on the other side, however. This isn't saying that Episcopalians are Christians too...Excellent research, I didn't realize it wasn't servant foundation behind this, and my original thought was more cynical: these ads were outrage bait to whip the vote. Glad to see that....may not(?) be the case, and I can't say that I hate inclusive ads even if they may motivate intolerant people as a reaction. Not much you can do about that. Honestly, maybe it'd be a good thing if people who identify as Christian would....go to church sometimes or learn more about the faith. It's weird that there is already so much dichotomy politically between certain factions of Christianity, Protestants lean conservative while Catholics lean democrat (partially probably demographics of each driving this). Still odd, and it's an odd ad to see on the super bowl, but I'm also weirded out how religious football is in general. (compared to Baseball, which ostensibly is also very Christian, but certainly more Catholic I suppose)
I think we have to take the motivation of the ad as at least not being entirely contrary to its apparent message, as being outrage bait would be. And looking at it, it does seem to be critical of current conservative Christian actions, with the anti-abortion protestors in the background of the abortion clinic being depicted as the hateful contrast to the foregrounded foot-washer, who is not depicted as being part of them.
Christianity has, of course, had rather significant divisions for a very long time. I'm not sure to what extent the traditional political divisions in the US remain the same. Catholicism in the US, at least devout rather than cultural Catholicism, seems to have moved in a distinctly conservative direction, with an obsessive focus on sexuality, gender, and abortion; it seems to be moving in this direction in opposition to the Pope, and to Catholicism elsewhere, though even Catholicism outside the US remains relatively conservative on these points. It may be there is a distinction to be made here between Latino and non-Latino Catholics, but there were good reasons for the Republican political strategy of trying to have the party focus on Latin-American social conservatives, the strategy that Trump opposed and destroyed.
Significant parts of Mainstream Protestantism seems to be either fighting wars to move toward more social liberalism or progressivism. After a messy schism with social conservatives departing, that ended up largely with court victories for the Church, Episcopal churches are at this point either strongly anti-Republican or very careful about what they say, and some of the more vocal churches are almost problematically partisan in their progressivism. The United Methodist Church is having a schism right now in its move toward LGBT acceptance. But then, Mainstream Protestantism hasn't made up a major portion of American Protestants for some time, particularly devout ones.
The (non-Episcopal) evangelicals and fundamentalists are, of course, very socially conservative, and seem to be the real driving force behind much of the conversation around Christianity in the US. But my understanding is that their focus on politics is actually rather recent, and can be dated perhaps to the 1970s and Falwell's decision to become politically involved against Baptist tradition.
Delusional people fighting each other about whose delusions are better. Or lying that they have delusions for the purpose of control/power. This is the gist of pretty much all of the civilizations humans create and destroy.
So to see two “sides” arguing that their delusions are better is just…delusional? It’s difficult to argue delusions. Still, for whatever reason delusional people keep wanting delusional people in power to enforce their delusions being better than someone else’s delusions.
Hopefully whatever new civilization comes along after we destroy ours won’t be mired in such silly and worthless dogma but I somehow doubt it…
This is pretty dismissive of a lot of folks who find something of value in faith. It's fine if you don't believe, but I don't think it's helpful to be dismissive or scornful toward those who do. I get the anger, believe me, but I don't think this is the way.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. I feel that being careful not to hurt people’s feelings about things that aren’t real and let it propogate has led us to our own destruction. If anything, people should be called out on it more. These outraged conservatives who weaponize “faith” are allowed to weaponize it because believing in the supernatural (and only the “correct” supernatural thing) has been normalized.
Any ideological movement can fall prey to people who weaponize the sincerely held beliefs of its adherents. You only have to look at the New Athiesm to Alt-Right pipeline or the increasing right-wing tendencies of techno-libertarians to see that.
Interesting read. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of those people before and they sound like a sour read. Charlatans on either side of “faith”. Which is why I ascribe to questioning any sort of expert, leader or movement. These fellows seem like they enjoy the power/fellowship/authority/ego-stroking/control/opinion that their adversaries also enjoy. Charlatans are gonna charlatan.
What they seem to all have in common on both sides by and large is their gender…but I’ll save my condemnation of the patriarchy and structures of power for another thread :)
I'm a little surprised you haven't heard of Dawkins. Harris and Pinker were probably a little less well known. Maybe I'm just old, but these guys were all over reddit in the early days. A lot of the worst of the "New Atheist" movement happened on reddit and similar sites. I think New Atheism, Gamergate, and some of the more troubling pockets of the online rationalist community are all examples of how groups of people are just vulnerable to manipulation, I really don't think a belief in the supernatural has much to do with it.
I’m not really “involved” with being an atheist so I don’t really pay any attention to things like that. I grew up with being forced into religion and came away with my own opinions about it in the ‘80s from my own worldview and experience. I wasn’t aware of “New Atheism” nor “Gamergate” till now :)
If you are hung up on the physical reality of a deity, you are nowhere near influencing the opinion of any dedicated believer. All it does is come across like someone eager to show off their latest shocking joke. Anyone outside the narrow strawman you have in mind already has rebuttals that make "you're delusional" look as convincing as a middle finger. I suspect the only feelings you hurt are those of fools like me who care about silly things like "being nice", since the people who you think you're talking to couldn't care less about your opinion.
This is my experience as well. I left church a couple of years ago but a few of my friends are still from church. I find it much easier to talk to them when I'm not telling them that they're delusional.
I never said “physical” nor am I trying to influence someone with my opinion - I’m definitely not that good. I can’t even influence myself :D However, this is a message board where people post their thoughts and opinions so I posted mine as did you. I’m not going to self-censor because it’s going to make someone uncomfortable about something as abstract as religion.
So you feel that way, and justify your comment with it, but not because you believe it?
Anyway, sure. Not asking you to censor your real beliefs, just maybe keep some self-awareness. "Billions of people keep doing these things that people have done throughout history, if they stopped being delusional, we wouldn't have these problems!" is a really self-centered and oversimplifying way of looking at the breadth of thought you've discounted.
I believe it is one of the major pillars of our destruction but definitely not the only thing. I didn’t say it was? I’m completely open to the idea that if it had never existed something else would have probably taken its place to control and manipulate the masses at this scale.
I get you’re angry but you’re extrapolating way too much from my comments.
I'm not angry, to be clear. We just have very different stances, and I'm telling you how your comments read to me. I can sit here and insert the couching phrases for myself and come to a more compassionate reading, and I have. But others might not, and some certainly won't. There's a time and place for "you get what I mean", but making polemics is dangerous with that attitude.
Apologies if I came across as attacking you, personally, because that was not intended.
I appreciate the feedback. I’m not very good with “reading a room” or keeping my opinions thoughtful. I am a bit too personally passionate about this topic so it probably wasn’t going to go well, in hindsight. :)
Who is anyone to say "it's not real?" The usual response is "the existence of (God/a god/any god) cannot be proved."
The movie Contact is about faith (not aliens, and not SETI), and there's a fantastic exchange between a hardcore scientist and a religious adherent. When she raises that line of defense, that God cannot be proved, he asks her to "prove" her love for her dead father.
She can't. No one can prove something like "love." Or "hate" for that matter. They can demonstrate they still feel love, or hate, but that's through actions. They're not proving anything, just demonstrating that they're willing to do something others will perceive as kind, or generous, or thoughtful, or caring, or some other nebulously defined "good" act. Which isn't proof, because people change their minds constantly. Today someone is "their friend", but tomorrow they need something their "friend" has, and now they're not friends anymore.
Is it less damaging if an absolutely disinterested person does evil, despicable things? A sociopath, for example, might not think at all about someone he murders. Lots of people, all across the world, do evil things every day and will claim with a completely straight face "I'm just doing my job" or "I'm just following orders."
Does that make it less evil, to say someone else ordered you to do it? To claim you're not personally invested, that you don't actually care as a human one way or another? I wonder how much anyone being beaten or evicted or left without might care about the motives of the person beating them, or driving them from a home, or ensuring they can't access food or medical care.
Anyone who wants to think very, very, very poorly of someone religious, who uses that religion as an excuse, crutch, and weapon against "unbelievers", I'm fully behind. Raise the pitchforks, light the torches, beat that bullshit back. It's a scourge upon humanity, when someone will weaponize any sort of belief in pursuit of violence.
Which science does too. Not just "faith". Those evil actors should be tarred with the same brush some are so eager to slather "faithful with.
There are circles of so-called logical, scientific minded folks in favor of genetically eliminating various traits, even various peoples, from humanity. That's weaponizing science. Who are we to say someone with autism, or deafness, or heart disease, doesn't deserve to live? That those people might not have anything to contribute to humanity?
And that's just the easy example. Militant atheists exist just as much as militant faithful.
Religion, like everything else of humanity, gets corrupted by humanity. Twisted and brought under someone's control as a way to control other humans. Sometimes it's a pope or bishop, sometimes it's an iman, sometimes a rabbi. But sometimes it's a scientist, sometimes it's an industrialist, or a professor, or an inventor. Evil and greed exists outside the scope of faith, and if a magic wand were to be waved, eliminating all faith from the world, we would just find other reasons to hate, lie, take, and kill.
Faith is just an excuse sometimes used by evil people. Same as capitalism is the excuse to dehumanize others, turn a blind eye to their pain and neglect. Same as classists will use privilege and the accident of birth as the excuse to exclude and belittle others.
Faith isn't the problem. People are. Target people who reveal themselves by bad actions, not nebulous things like "faith" or "science."
Punish actions. If someone rises from prayer having decided their god calls upon them to wreak violence upon others, that's a problem. That they prayed isn't the problem. If a scientist emerges from her lab intent on using her latest discovery to lay waste to those in her way, her actions aren't any more pure, any less evil, when she does them claiming it's in the name of science.
The hostilities towards religions will get a lot better in the USA when Christians accept that they exist in a secular state and their beliefs are not the law of the land for a reason. Oh and stop channeling money into anti-gay and anti-woman propaganda.
It's fine to find value in faith or whatnot. It's not fine to demand that everyone else adhere to the principles of your religion. Or get special treatment to "opt out" of the secular options and take your funding with you.
That "when" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, friend. People do not give up power willingly.
No disagreement there. I was merely outlining the terms, not stating how quickly or easily they'd be accepted.
It's almost like the major problem is the money/power the organizations wield, rather than the beliefs of the members themselves (though those things do end up bleeding together).
Not the parent.
While I get what you say, I believe there is some merit to the statement that "religion is the opium of the people". From where I stand, I can't really see than many religious people whose faith underpins their will to help others. More often they have resigned themselves. They usually try to convince both their close ones as well as themselves that "everything is as he intended" while the world around them is burning.
The other problem with religious faith is that believers are accustomed to, well, believing. Once you start ascribing properties to a non-existent being, you can believe in anything. And if you don't (you might have your own idea about what Jesus actually stands for or whatever), that usually means you don't really believe in anything external. You believe in your own ideals first and project them to some external entity for convenience second.
And lastly, mistakenly believing that some things are immutable and given from an external entity kind of complicates negotiations with other people when they try to tell you that those things are, in fact, negotiable and fully in your hands. You can't exactly go and ask your personal Jesus and you do not allow yourself to give the answer.
So yeah, there are some good reasons for just sighing, rolling ones eyes and uttering "do people seriously still believe that crap?" when the matter of benefits of one's religious faith are brought up. Religions along with their followers kinda had couple thousand years to prove that their way is actually better and since in 2024 Christ is still being used to condemn other people I dare say they have utterly failed.
And to anyone who dares to think "but what if it's a person believing on their own, not being a part of organized religion or anything?"; that's not how it works, is it? In absolute majority of such cases, those people were dragged to the church by their parents, indoctrinated and then slowly drifted away in their later life because nobody forced them to attend anymore. I find it pretty creepy that there are people who delude kids into blindly believing stuff and who do so overtly, in an organized fashion.
Honestly religion already gets too much of a pass as it is. People just don't notice because they're so used to it.
A politician saying "I believe a mystical being with magic powers has set down a list of arbitrary rules and behaviors I need to follow. This will be a major factor in all my policy decisions" should be a major concern. It shouldn't be any different that saying he was going to be taking instruction from a ghost, aliens, horoscopes, Santa etc.
Yet somehow not only is this considered completely ok. It will actually hurt your chances of getting elected if you say you won't do this.