3 ms·

>Now imagine the man-millenia wasted on all that hocus pocus. my/mine imaginary deity/deities is/are the one true deity/deities, because, er, I say so, and so

>Now imagine the man-millenia wasted on all that hocus pocus. my/mine imaginary deity/deities is/are the one true deity/deities, because, er, I say so, and so did my parents! how people can buy into the fairy-tales which is religion has always baffles me, atleast unless you are indoctrinated from a young age and shielded from critical thinking.

hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
You're naive if you think that's all what religion boils down to. That tree includes Confucianism, for instance. Although it's considered a religion, it's secular and closer to philosophy. Most religions are also mixed with creation mythologies, which have a bonding function inside cultures and ethnic groups. So, the `religion` subject is much more complex than a simple pissing contest.
- the8472 11y ago
  It also makes it a fairly fuzzy target, since at at any time someone might invoke but <criticism> does not apply to <placeholder religion>, therefore it's not really an argument against religion per se and i dismiss it entirely Exhaustive, lawyer-proof arguments are fairly tedious. Obviously some generalizations and shortcuts are taken. The "my imaginary deity" argument was (hopefully) meant as criticism regarding institutionalized denial of truth to uphold supernatural aspects and claims to power for various religions. Creation mythologies don't just have a bonding function, they may also serve as a justification for monarchy or caste systems if some people are descended from/treated preferentially by some aspect of that creation. X's chosen people. Of course religions did fulfill social roles, as glue for people who needed answers for things that could not be answered at the time. And maybe they still do to some extent to this day. But that shouldn't keep anyone from highlighting anachronistic aspects.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- incompatible 11y ago
  If it doesn't make any unverifiable claims about the supernatural, then by all means remove it from the "religions" category and add it to "philosophy".
  - gonvaled 11y ago
    I would change "unverifiable" by "unfalsifiable" there. Nothing is verifiable (not even science works that way).
  - hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
    Read Espinoza if you think it's clear cut like that.

hcarvalhoalves 11y ago

You're naive if you think that's all what religion boils down to. That tree includes Confucianism, for instance. Although it's considered a religion, it's secular and closer to philosophy. Most religions are also mixed with creation mythologies, which have a bonding function inside cultures and ethnic groups. So, the `religion` subject is much more complex than a simple pissing contest.

the8472 11y ago
It also makes it a fairly fuzzy target, since at at any time someone might invoke but <criticism> does not apply to <placeholder religion>, therefore it's not really an argument against religion per se and i dismiss it entirely Exhaustive, lawyer-proof arguments are fairly tedious. Obviously some generalizations and shortcuts are taken. The "my imaginary deity" argument was (hopefully) meant as criticism regarding institutionalized denial of truth to uphold supernatural aspects and claims to power for various religions. Creation mythologies don't just have a bonding function, they may also serve as a justification for monarchy or caste systems if some people are descended from/treated preferentially by some aspect of that creation. X's chosen people. Of course religions did fulfill social roles, as glue for people who needed answers for things that could not be answered at the time. And maybe they still do to some extent to this day. But that shouldn't keep anyone from highlighting anachronistic aspects.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
incompatible 11y ago
If it doesn't make any unverifiable claims about the supernatural, then by all means remove it from the "religions" category and add it to "philosophy".
- gonvaled 11y ago
  I would change "unverifiable" by "unfalsifiable" there. Nothing is verifiable (not even science works that way).
- hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
  Read Espinoza if you think it's clear cut like that.