Moderation Questions

You must have a low opinion of Texas megachurches, which is perfectly understandable.

Well, I think the mod position is that asserting trans people are suffering from mental illness is considered hate speech because the assertion isn't grounded in mental science.

I have pretty strong opinions on it, too. I think the main two failings are: overprescribing of medication; coddling people. But there are professionals in the middle that shoot straight and don't rely on medication where medication isn't absolutely necessary and don't treat people like they are 5-years-old and helpless.

Let's just say your original choice to use the term "freeloader" was carefully chosen; it's obvious you look down on people who don't donate to the church. That's fine - it doesn't bother me.

So you agree there are a shitload of religions. You agree that they all can be right.

Ergo, why do you think your religion out of thousands is right and they are wrong when they are equally convinced you are wrong and they are right? How many religions have you studied in depth like you have with Christianity?

If you think about it, a pastor is just some unemployed dude reading Bible passages to people not smart enough to read and think for themselves. Not a bad gig.

Yes. The main objective is to separate people from their money.

But hey, let's look at another ideology - say, veganism. What's veganism's foundational goal: to stop people from abusing/killing animals. What's a religion's foundational goal: to promise people everlasting life after they die.

In both instances, a rogue agent can use it to exploit people in order to grift money, but at least veganism is tangible; that is, if you don't use animal products, you know you've minimalized the suffering/deaths of animals. Now draw a similar parallel to religion.

I guess I see the history of religion as being more akin to a primitive science. Religion seeks to explain something about the world, which is why it tends to be present in all societies. It also has some sociological functions like uniting a community under a common identity, inculcating people into cultural knowledge, and serving as a tool to teach people their role in a given culture. It’s that last one that makes religion particularly exploitable for people in power, but it’s just one aspect of the whole thing.

Take Buddhism for example. The goal of Buddhism is actually not everlasting life but the end of suffering achieved through cessation of personal identity. There’s no promise of everlasting life, but rather an understanding of how the world “really” is beyond appearances.

One of the other things that makes religion more exploitable is that it tends to be exposited by the ruling class. Think of hinduism with the veda, or Jewish kings/prophets, etc. I think that’s more a matter of who would have access to education rather than a function of what religion’s specific purpose is. In hunter-gatherer, tribal, or nomadic societies that might not be the case.

Since you love to nit it up I will correct you. There are three marks of existence.

Anicca, dukkha, anatta. Impermanence, suffering, non-self.

Stating that personal identity ceases is ignorance/avidya. There is nothing you can ever point to that is the self. It doesn't cease.

Mwah.

It was a high level overview, but I appreciate the correction. I’m not an expert by any means on Buddhism, the main point was about how the goal isn’t everlasting life.

I do indeed.

Could be.

I think this is a reasonable position. I admit to having difficulty being objective on this subject owing to my personal bad experience.

I deliberately chose 'freeloader' to suggest a person who has the means to contribute but chooses not to. I'm fine if someone wants to enjoy the church while not giving to it. I'm just happy they're at church at all.

No, I thought I made it clear that they cannot all be right. At MOST one can be right. Logically, they could all be wrong.

That's a very important question which doesn't have a short answer. If you want I can provide links from stuff I've posted in RGT on the subject.

Zero.

I was miraculously saved by Jesus Christ even before I knew much about Christianity.

That's a candidate for the dumbest thing said in this forum in the past....two days.

Now you're just lying, ignorant or stoopid or trolling.

Many vegans are vegans for health reasons, not moral reasons. And many vegans who are vegans on moral grounds don't proselytize.

Of course ANY ideology can be used as a grift. That's not a news bulletin.

Right... you have no issue with a dude who pulls up into church each week with more 100K+ cars than Kohl's polos your pastor owns but always dips out without giving a single dollar regardless of the cause? It's okay, brah.

Yes. Obviously I meant to type cannot all be right and not can all be right. But as luck would have it, out of thousands of religions, you found the one and only true religion. Pretty impressive.

Yeah, if my pastor comment is the dumbest thing said in this forum over the past two days, then saying you were saved by Jesus without knowing Jesus has to dwarf it, but I'm sure it sounds good on the street.

So you agree that religion attempts to control people, but you vehemently disagree that the reason they want to control people is to fear them into coughing up the cheddar?

No such thing. Veganism isn't a diet; it's a moral ideology which extends to diet. What you're thinking of is a pure vegetarian.

Unlike Christianity, veganism doesn't have a book that commands you to proselytize.

None like religion. I mean, "Hey, do what I say, and you'll live forever" or "Hey, do what I say, and you'll bang 72 virgins for eternity." Those are some tall promises.

Never seen that happen. If it ever happens at my church, I'll let you know my reaction.

Christ is King!

Whatever, dude.

I suppose virtually every human interaction is in some sense an attempt to control people. Seems part of the human condition, among the religious and irreligious alike.

Do 'pure vegetarians' consume milk and eggs? Is that what distinguishes a vegetarian from a 'pure vegetarian?'

Good.

Whatever, dude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

Types of Veganism:

Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. "Ethical veganism" means avoiding using animals, animal products, and animal-tested products for any purpose, when practicable.[12][c] The motivation behind this is concern about animal welfare.[15] Another term is "environmental veganism", which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the grounds that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.[16] "Dietary veganism", whose practitioners are also known as "strict vegetarians", refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances. This can be for religious reasons too.[17][d][21]

Something something freeloader, I'll bet.

Weak.

Strawman.

That's an ovo-lacto vegetarian. A pure vegetarian eats a vegan diet but may wear leather, hunt, jackoff with lanolin... you get the idea.

Weak.

This stuff was hashed out long before the internet was publicly accessible and chit like beegan and flexitarian already fit into one of these:

Omnivore
Vegetarian
Pescatarian
Pure Vegetarian
Fruitarian
Breatharian

The last one, I suppose, you'd be into so long as you're promised a life after death.

Maybe not expressly so, but established religion through churches, temples and schools tends to be based on power over action and belief, enforced through sanctions for going against the accepted teachings and rewards for being a good member. The primary sanction is ostracization and the primary rewards are inclusion, praise or increased responsibility, all four of which are very powerful motivators for behavior. These things are not unique to churches, but I would say that the effect is both amplified and encouraged based on religious teaching.

Doubt is generally seen as problematic, being described and experienced as a crisis or even a flaw.

While some churches and beliefs preach about the importance of being apolitical, it is not exactly a secret that many become political actors. Expectancy of political voting can hover uncomfortably right in between implicit and explicit. It can be seen as sinful to vote for the wrong party or person.

And then there is certainly religions that can become powerful political players and literally move nations, or even grow into full blown theocracy. This when you get crusades, fatwas, coronations, the Ma Ba Tha, jihads, passagium, forced conversion or religion enshrined into law etc.

Yes. I would say that hijacking our evolutionary psychology as social animals and coercing group behavior is the main purpose of religion. With social ostracization being the main "stick" to maintain compliance.

Is there some reason why you think religion is "hijacking" our evolutionary psychology as opposed to being a manifestation of it? For whatever reason, humans seem pretty hardwired to adopt religious or mystical beliefs to explain the world. We've been doing it for all of recorded history, and probably well before recorded history.

Soft wired Id say, seeing as how the prevalence of religion in a society decreases the better educated its citizens are.

"religion over human history" is a pretty broad concept

I don’t disagree with your analysis that religions oftentimes embed themselves in or create power structures in society. My contention is with the specific idea that this is the “purpose” of religion, which I find dubious. I think there’s a much more fundamental inclination that gives rise to religion, which is the desire to explain the world, especially death, suffering, and why we are here (though not always).

It may seem like splitting hairs as I’ve been accused of doing, but I do think it’s a good idea to make these distinctions for the sake of understanding why people become religious or why religion seems to be universal in all societies, as universal as anything is in humanity.

Whatever, dude.

Whatever, dude.

How so?

Thanks for the info.

Whatever, dude.

Again, thanks for the info. I like being edumacted on stuff like this.

The bolded is VERY important in my opinion. I don't think I've ever known anyone who became religious because they wanted to control people. (I'm sure there are many folks who become pastors for that reason, though.)

Religion is primarily an ancient and primitive form of lawmaking and its goal is conformity. It is not so much about explaining the world (a task in which it fails miserably) as enforcing a particular explanation which everyone has to pretend to agree to, often on pain of death.

It has more than one function. In ancient times it also served as reassurance that scary things like thunder and night time were all planned and controlled by god(s).

I think Westerners like to focus on the instrumental role of religion so we call it a way for people to feel better or assert control without understanding the parallels between religion and science/philosophy. So it’s not just that it made people feel better, it also acts as an explanation for why things are the way they are.

Believing you understand why things are the way they are has always been reassuring to people, and this applies to pre enlightenment Westerners as much as anyone else.

That, and also the old 'And only we can save you!'

Word choice probably reflects my own biases.

I do believe having an "effective" organized religion did (and probably still does?) provide some fitness benefit, at the individual and societal level.