5 ms·

> If the fundamentalists are a problem, maybe there’s a problem with the fundamentals? That line would only hold if fundamentalists have correctly identified t

> If the fundamentalists are a problem, maybe there’s a problem with the fundamentals? That line would only hold if fundamentalists have correctly identified the fundamentals. I wage they have badly missed it, which is why their theology is so bad. > being a good person or not is largely disconnected from religiousness Being a good person is not the primary point of religion. It is rather a hoped for outcome. Religion is not therapy.

fossuser 6y ago
The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things. This means even if most people most of the time are perfectly pleasant, they can get swept up in other stuff that gets out of hand and hurts people. If you can't persuade someone with evidence based reasoning because their position is based on 'faith' or belief in the face of contrary evidence I don't know what to do with that. There are forms of religious people that dismiss all the 'crazy' things and just have some vague mysticism - which is probably the least harmful form, but is a little odd to me. People like to feel a part of something grand I suppose - but we already are. Existence is pretty amazing even without the human religious myths being true. Maybe one day the myths will be just a part of our collective history (as many older ones currently are).
- rayiner 6y ago
  > The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things I don’t think that’s true at all, and possibly the opposite is true. Comparing Bangladesh, where I’m from, to America, people here are a lot less religious. But I wouldn’t say the net amount of “crazy” believes is different. People in Bangladesh are a lot more down to earth and less likely to believe in faddish ideas that tend to fill the vacuum in the absence of religion. American culture around eating and fitness, and particularly the “clean food” stuff is a good example of this. It’s for the most part completely unscientific, but fervently believed.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    > People in Bangladesh are a lot more down to earth and less likely to believe in faddish ideas that tend to fill the vacuum in the absence of religion. How do you square this position with all the social media fueled mob lynchings/murders in Bangladesh? One example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49102074 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49102074 I’m not claiming the US is any better, we have mass shootings and all kinds of violence, but generally not lynch mobs (at least in the 21st century)
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      We have had social and mainstream media fueled riots across entire country last summer, based on a whole bunch of untrue crazy beliefs too.
- Noos 6y ago
  Everyone is crazy in their own way. There is no rationality strong enough to remove the crazy from people, and smart people over time have formed their own craziness not bound by religion or mysticism. This site for example is pooh-poohing religion now, but five minutes later will gush over LSD's power to give pseudo-spiritual epiphanies. It used to love stoicism, which was shopworn even in the Victorian age. Probably in a year from now some other retread of old belief system will be rediscovered, maybe EST or Theosophy, or something.
- theonething 6y ago
  > The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things. Some examples I can think of are Pol Pot, Stalin and the North Korean Kim dynasty. My point is there is much rhetoric about religion being a historical scourge of society, but the same people making those assertions conveniently forget that atheistic ideologies had very negative consequences as well. I'm not arguing based on whataboutism here. I'm saying that blaming religion for the ills of society while exalting atheism is fallacious.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    There's an important distinction - the religious crimes are often done because of the underlying ideology. Stalin did terrible things, but it wasn't in the name of atheism. Throwing away bad doctrine doesn't instantly make you good, but it helps not to have problematic ideology at the start. If you're going to build a world, one that updates based on evidence is a good place to start. Seek out evidence that violates your confirmation bias, steelman arguments, change your mind when warranted.
    - theonething 6y ago
      > Stalin did terrible things, but it wasn't in the name of atheism. USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941: "The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for an education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy. " "The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church and Islam, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]" "Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR.[43] It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.[43]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(...
sethc2 6y ago
Exactly. Fundamentalists miss the actual fundamentals. People mistake the American Evangelical Christianity that is a few hundred years old for the church established by the apostles nearly 2000 years ago. That church was it which considered the weak as equally valuable as the strong, that insisted on helping the poor, that believed men and women both to be of the utmost value. That established hospitals to care for the sick. All of these things were not the norm. The weak were considered less valuable. Women were not worth as much as men. Sick people should be avoided. The poor aren’t worth helping. People are rightfully scornful of American evangelicalism, but they throw the baby out with the bath water and try to pretend that the orthodox (in sense of true and right) church has not done tremendous good in this world.
- AuthorizedCust 6y ago
  > People mistake the American Evangelical Christianity... Hell, people mistake American Evangelical Christianity with "true Christianity". Far too many allow themselves into being duped into thinking that the loudest, most odious, and most forceful are the most legitimate claimants to Christianity. Barf.
- freewilly1040 6y ago
  To take a counter example, do you believe that the Catholic Church has had a pattern of covering up for pedophiles in its clergy? If so how far back does that pattern go? Why shouldn’t we assume it goes back hundreds of years, or the full 2000 year history of the church? By the way, that same old church taught wives to obey their husbands and to this day does not allow them to be clergy. The notion that women are not worth as much as men was not recently introduced.
  - AuthorizedCust 6y ago
    Virtually every youth-serving organization used to not handle abuse of youth properly. I am not going to pin this just on the Catholic Church. Other youth-serving organizations, like sports, other churches, YMCAs, etc. were all deficient. I am a volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. Its market-leading and pioneering youth-protection programs are still examples to this day, and the vast majority of claims in its current bankruptcy process are from before these programs started. Society has changed, and youth are much better off for it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Noos 6y ago
if you've ever talked to non-fundamentalists, usually they just regurgitate whatever the contemporary secular morality of the moment is with a mild religious gloss, and they suffer in membership much worse than the fundamentalists because it's obvious. Fundamentalism is usually just taking the source material seriously at what it says; liberal Christianity tends to try and reinterpret the source material to fit contemporary mores. It's impossible to justify homosexuality in the scriptures for example; most progressive arguments end up just setting fire to the inspiration of the bible to do so, by saying "they weren't really speaking about homosexuality" or "why should we trust what Paul says about it?" Fundamentalists are disliked, but they are a lot more logically and internally consistent than the mainline. Mainline is just the halfway stop to atheism, honestly.

fossuser 6y ago

The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things. This means even if most people most of the time are perfectly pleasant, they can get swept up in other stuff that gets out of hand and hurts people. If you can't persuade someone with evidence based reasoning because their position is based on 'faith' or belief in the face of contrary evidence I don't know what to do with that. There are forms of religious people that dismiss all the 'crazy' things and just have some vague mysticism - which is probably the least harmful form, but is a little odd to me. People like to feel a part of something grand I suppose - but we already are. Existence is pretty amazing even without the human religious myths being true. Maybe one day the myths will be just a part of our collective history (as many older ones currently are).

rayiner 6y ago
> The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things I don’t think that’s true at all, and possibly the opposite is true. Comparing Bangladesh, where I’m from, to America, people here are a lot less religious. But I wouldn’t say the net amount of “crazy” believes is different. People in Bangladesh are a lot more down to earth and less likely to believe in faddish ideas that tend to fill the vacuum in the absence of religion. American culture around eating and fitness, and particularly the “clean food” stuff is a good example of this. It’s for the most part completely unscientific, but fervently believed.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  > People in Bangladesh are a lot more down to earth and less likely to believe in faddish ideas that tend to fill the vacuum in the absence of religion. How do you square this position with all the social media fueled mob lynchings/murders in Bangladesh? One example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49102074 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49102074 I’m not claiming the US is any better, we have mass shootings and all kinds of violence, but generally not lynch mobs (at least in the 21st century)
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    We have had social and mainstream media fueled riots across entire country last summer, based on a whole bunch of untrue crazy beliefs too.
Noos 6y ago
Everyone is crazy in their own way. There is no rationality strong enough to remove the crazy from people, and smart people over time have formed their own craziness not bound by religion or mysticism. This site for example is pooh-poohing religion now, but five minutes later will gush over LSD's power to give pseudo-spiritual epiphanies. It used to love stoicism, which was shopworn even in the Victorian age. Probably in a year from now some other retread of old belief system will be rediscovered, maybe EST or Theosophy, or something.
theonething 6y ago
> The thing that scares me about it is when people believe crazy things, they're more likely to believe other crazy things. Some examples I can think of are Pol Pot, Stalin and the North Korean Kim dynasty. My point is there is much rhetoric about religion being a historical scourge of society, but the same people making those assertions conveniently forget that atheistic ideologies had very negative consequences as well. I'm not arguing based on whataboutism here. I'm saying that blaming religion for the ills of society while exalting atheism is fallacious.
- fossuser 6y ago
  There's an important distinction - the religious crimes are often done because of the underlying ideology. Stalin did terrible things, but it wasn't in the name of atheism. Throwing away bad doctrine doesn't instantly make you good, but it helps not to have problematic ideology at the start. If you're going to build a world, one that updates based on evidence is a good place to start. Seek out evidence that violates your confirmation bias, steelman arguments, change your mind when warranted.
  - theonething 6y ago
    > Stalin did terrible things, but it wasn't in the name of atheism. USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941: "The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for an education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy. " "The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church and Islam, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]" "Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR.[43] It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.[43]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(...

sethc2 6y ago

Exactly. Fundamentalists miss the actual fundamentals. People mistake the American Evangelical Christianity that is a few hundred years old for the church established by the apostles nearly 2000 years ago. That church was it which considered the weak as equally valuable as the strong, that insisted on helping the poor, that believed men and women both to be of the utmost value. That established hospitals to care for the sick. All of these things were not the norm. The weak were considered less valuable. Women were not worth as much as men. Sick people should be avoided. The poor aren’t worth helping. People are rightfully scornful of American evangelicalism, but they throw the baby out with the bath water and try to pretend that the orthodox (in sense of true and right) church has not done tremendous good in this world.

AuthorizedCust 6y ago
> People mistake the American Evangelical Christianity... Hell, people mistake American Evangelical Christianity with "true Christianity". Far too many allow themselves into being duped into thinking that the loudest, most odious, and most forceful are the most legitimate claimants to Christianity. Barf.
freewilly1040 6y ago
To take a counter example, do you believe that the Catholic Church has had a pattern of covering up for pedophiles in its clergy? If so how far back does that pattern go? Why shouldn’t we assume it goes back hundreds of years, or the full 2000 year history of the church? By the way, that same old church taught wives to obey their husbands and to this day does not allow them to be clergy. The notion that women are not worth as much as men was not recently introduced.
- AuthorizedCust 6y ago
  Virtually every youth-serving organization used to not handle abuse of youth properly. I am not going to pin this just on the Catholic Church. Other youth-serving organizations, like sports, other churches, YMCAs, etc. were all deficient. I am a volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. Its market-leading and pioneering youth-protection programs are still examples to this day, and the vast majority of claims in its current bankruptcy process are from before these programs started. Society has changed, and youth are much better off for it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Noos 6y ago

if you've ever talked to non-fundamentalists, usually they just regurgitate whatever the contemporary secular morality of the moment is with a mild religious gloss, and they suffer in membership much worse than the fundamentalists because it's obvious. Fundamentalism is usually just taking the source material seriously at what it says; liberal Christianity tends to try and reinterpret the source material to fit contemporary mores. It's impossible to justify homosexuality in the scriptures for example; most progressive arguments end up just setting fire to the inspiration of the bible to do so, by saying "they weren't really speaking about homosexuality" or "why should we trust what Paul says about it?" Fundamentalists are disliked, but they are a lot more logically and internally consistent than the mainline. Mainline is just the halfway stop to atheism, honestly.