Positive side of organised religion

[kallend 1,622]

The Curate's Egg seems an appropriate reference for this thread.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg

[nigel99 143]

15 minutes ago, kallend said:

The Curate's Egg seems an appropriate reference for this thread.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg

I learnt something today. Interesting thanks

[turtlespeed 212]

On 1/1/2020 at 5:34 AM, kallend said:

The Curate's Egg seems an appropriate reference for this thread.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg

Thank you, John.  I will use that if the opportunity comes up.

[SethInMI 145]

I saw Penn Jillette speak a few years ago when he was on a book tour (probably for God No!). He took some questions from the audience, and one was "how do we replace the community that church provides?"

His answer was "art", which I found unsatisfying. I think he meant people should gather around shared artistic interests, or support artistic causes.

[SethInMI 145]

one thing I have noticed is that the skydiving community can be tighter than a church, so building community around shared interests is definitely possible. 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

On 12/30/2019 at 11:35 AM, BIGUN said:

Very true. Raised Catholic, changed to Presbyterian (they do confession and communion also), have been to a Lutheran church after meeting a hoot of a chaplain in the Army (Lutherans have a great sense of humor and don't take the world too seriously). Recently, our daughter got involved with kids that attend LifeChurch and the service is quite different than any traditional church. Everyone attends the service early for bagels and coffee served by Baristas in the form of volunteers.

They all mingle, those in a group will introduce people they see and know to the group. Those groups break up and go meet new people in other groups.   The entire social dynamic is interesting to watch. Then, everyone heads in to the "church" which is in a retail space. Local Christian rock, country & easy listening bands will play and sing Christian music (which is gaining an upwards trend on the charts) to open the service . . . There's no traditional hymnals. The songs are projected on the screens with the words (kinda like karaoke).

There is about 15 minutes of sermon by the founding pastor. They send around the baskets for offerings and while doing it - say something I've never heard before; "Please contribute what you can and if you are in need; please reach in the basket and take what you need" There's nothing about tithes, no guilt if you can only throw in a couple of bucks and I've seen those who can pay nothing. 

After the sermon; there's more Christian music, then everyone heads back to coffee and bagels, gather into groups and decide what they're going to do that day - together as a group. Some opt for lunch, some go for disc golf, movies, etc.

Many of them - like my daughter don't listen to rock, pop or rap - Christian music is a shared like as was the Grateful Dead to us. They go to their concerts, dance to the music, its a social norm to know the music, gather and socialize with the music as their locus. 

As I watch, observe and listen to their goals for the future. Their dreams for the community and even the planet. Talk of challenging careers in biochemistry, space, oceanography, etc. "And, I think to myself what a wonderful world."   

        

That's fantastic, for you. But what about for me? What about my LGBTQ brothers and sisters? How about my nieces who I want to have reproductive choices? 

Kieth, it has zero to do with what a "wonderful life you live" and that's the problem. Will you now come out (no mistaken choice of words) and disclaim that we are a Christian Nation? Will you agree that your beliefs deserve no more suckle from the Government than mine? Will you agree that every person deserves the freedom to live their lives as they choose without interference from anyones religious dogma? 

 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

On 12/30/2019 at 11:35 AM, BIGUN said:

Very true. Raised Catholic, changed to Presbyterian (they do confession and communion also), have been to a Lutheran church after meeting a hoot of a chaplain in the Army (Lutherans have a great sense of humor and don't take the world too seriously). Recently, our daughter got involved with kids that attend LifeChurch and the service is quite different than any traditional church. Everyone attends the service early for bagels and coffee served by Baristas in the form of volunteers.

They all mingle, those in a group will introduce people they see and know to the group. Those groups break up and go meet new people in other groups.   The entire social dynamic is interesting to watch. Then, everyone heads in to the "church" which is in a retail space. Local Christian rock, country & easy listening bands will play and sing Christian music (which is gaining an upwards trend on the charts) to open the service . . . There's no traditional hymnals. The songs are projected on the screens with the words (kinda like karaoke).

There is about 15 minutes of sermon by the founding pastor. They send around the baskets for offerings and while doing it - say something I've never heard before; "Please contribute what you can and if you are in need; please reach in the basket and take what you need" There's nothing about tithes, no guilt if you can only throw in a couple of bucks and I've seen those who can pay nothing. 

After the sermon; there's more Christian music, then everyone heads back to coffee and bagels, gather into groups and decide what they're going to do that day - together as a group. Some opt for lunch, some go for disc golf, movies, etc.

Many of them - like my daughter don't listen to rock, pop or rap - Christian music is a shared like as was the Grateful Dead to us. They go to their concerts, dance to the music, its a social norm to know the music, gather and socialize with the music as their locus. 

As I watch, observe and listen to their goals for the future. Their dreams for the community and even the planet. Talk of challenging careers in biochemistry, space, oceanography, etc. "And, I think to myself what a wonderful world."   

        

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by JoeWeber
double post

[BIGUN 1,051]

16 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That's fantastic

But what about for me? Well "you" chose to read my missive angry and responded in your usual liberal snotty manner. The whole missive was about the younger generation of Christians changing the entire dynamic of Christian faith. 

What about my LGBTQ brothers and sisters? What about them? The progress that's been made is exponential of that of what blacks and latinos have had to go through over the past 100 years. Event the Roman Catholic Pope has come out and said, "Who am I to judge" on the topic of being gay. Stop looking for the bad and start looking for the good. That's what my post was about.  Hell, even in backwater Tulsa - the largest methodist church just had a female gay pastor deliver the Sunday sermon and denounced discrimination against the LBGQTEP community. 

How about my nieces who I want to have reproductive choices? What about it? They have more choices now than they did in 1970. And, my question to you and your liberal friends is, "Why in the hell is abortion still even an option? With the amount of money spent on sex education each year for the past forty years, carrying around a sack of flour, education on HIV/AIDS, having to have your nieces get the HPV vaccine, etc., etc. - you'd think that every swinging Richard would have a condom and every Female on the planet would be on the pill. And, then the only choice would need to be, "When do you WANT to have a baby?"  But, it seems that the liberals don't want a laser-like focus on the matter - just the usual shout from the highest building shotgun approach. Hell, abortions should have been cured by now. 

Kieth, it has zero to do with what a "wonderful life you live" and that's the problem. It's spelled, "Keith."

Will you now come out (no mistaken choice of words) and disclaim that we are a Christian Nation? I will not. I will come out and disclaim that we are not the Christian nation of years past. I am no longer Catholic. Long story as to why and I've shared it on here in the past.  But, as stated in the first missive - this latest young generation of Christians has a completely different perspective on belief, community, right and wrong, pride & prejudice, care for the planet, etc.   

Will you agree that your beliefs deserve no more suckle from the Government than mine? You think the government gives a fuck that you're atheist? You  don;t think you have the exact same rights as everyone else? The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing citizens for professing and exercising their religious beliefs - including a lack of religious belief.  Atheists are protected by the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a government-sponsored house of worship or showing preference to one or all religions by passing laws to favor religion, or by forcing citizens to profess belief in religion or attend religious services. I got bad news for you Joe. It ain;t the government - it's your fellow citizens. Those who do believe and get tired of your standing on your soapbox whining about how Atheists are so underappreciated or have no rights. The fact is - they just turn and walk away. Kinda like my feelings. I don't give one shit if you believe or not. I just get tired of the shouting about you being a victim Hell, I don't even give a shit about all the different denominations - life is too short to worry about which one thinks they're the MOST right about the bible. 

Will you agree that every person deserves the freedom to live their lives as they choose without interference from anyone's religious dogma?  Just as I've always believed your right to not believe; is as much a right as my right to believe. 

What I disagree with is - the 20 or 20% who seem to think they have the right to stick their fingers in my chest and shout that my belief is wrong when they have no belief in anything except self. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

What I disagree with is - the 20 or 20% who seem to think they have the right to stick their fingers in my chest and shout that my belief is wrong when they have no belief in anything except self. 

Hi Keith,

While I could negatively comment on a lot of what you wrote, I will not.

However, I do agree with this 100%.

Now if I could just get you Christians to stop trying to convert me; i.e., coming up to my door, leaving documents on my doorknob, etc.

I've actually had to threaten a couple of them with violence to get them off of my property.  How Christian of them!!!!!!!!!

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As I have said before, I have never met a 'whining atheist.'

PPS)  Yes, it is spelled KEITH.  However, you might just clean up the rest of your typos before you start bitching about his typo.

[SethInMI 145]

On 12/30/2019 at 3:39 AM, nigel99 said:

There are many people who draw comfort from their beliefs and it helps them to make sense of what can be a harsh and cruel world. 

I listened to a interview a few weeks ago, and the respondent was talking about how her life had some very rough points, but as a religious person she took great comfort in the fact that everything was unfolding in some great plan, even if it wasn't what she wanted.

Listening to that, I was struck by the fact that as an atheist, when tragedy strikes I take comfort in the opposite truth, that there is no plan at all, and therefore no need to rationalize or search for some sort of meaning in the senselessness of tragedy. 

I think it is similar with morality, religious people take comfort in the existence of an external code, an "absolute" standard of right and wrong which they can fall back on. (and I say absolute in quotes, because the centuries have proved that that code is quite flexible). Atheists take comfort in the opposite, that we humans get to define our moral code, and we have to live with the results. It's my favorite turn of phrase: "there's no justice, there's just us"

[mbohu 77]

Looks like there are a number of different sub-threads (sub-topics) in this thread, some more interesting than others:

The first one seems to be about "what influence should government/society have upon belief systems and religions. How should laws be designed to either make sure no specific religion has undue influence, or how should it, on the contrary, support specific religions (because they are important to "our" culture), etc."
While this may be the most IMPORTANT question, it is also the least INTERESTING one, so: being the entitled liberal brat that I am, I'll leave these important but boring questions to others.

 

One much more interesting question circles around the ontological arguments about evidence and how believers and "non-believers" come to believe what they do, and I think that something is being missed here (particularly by the non-believers' side). It is my experience that the more steadfast believers in any religion or spiritual doctrine, usually do not primarily believe in it because of some book or passed down doctrine (as you seemed to imply, Wendy), but because of some deep internal experience, that they feel is undeniable and and irrefutable (to them). This experience, they feel, cannot simply be argued away by rational explanations and references to "lack of proof" as it is a much more alive and direct thing, than these rational arguments.
For example, RonD alluded to such experience for him, when he wrote about his experience of what it means to him to be born again. (I could be wrong about this, of course, because with him, who the heck knows??? Sorry, Ron!)
Now I know, many atheists (or otherwise self-identified non-believers) will dismiss these experiences as explainable by all kinds of "rational causes" ranging from brain chemistry, to "the stupidity and naiveté of the believer" (see Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, etc.) However, none of these arguments will convince anyone who has had these experiences (for better or for worse.)
What I find interesting though, is that believers then need to assign some kind of fixed, limited, story to their experience and they usually latch on to a given pre-existing interpretation, and this is--at least in the ontological sense--where organized religion and various "sacred texts" come in. The problem being, that these of course have very limiting explanations and often are purposefully exclusive to every other possible interpretation of these experiences. (I think this may well be intentional, as--consciously or sub-consciously--the creators of these systems and texts may have recognized the immense psychological powers of such deep experiences and felt the need to put them into a framework that could control them in a way, that felt "safe" to them). So now we end up with Christians who are convinced of their own personal experience with, and connection to, God (and I think that is something very real to them and not just something learned from scripture and their pastors) but completely negate the possibility that such an experience is just as real for the Buddhist or Sikh or Muslim or even the Pagan (even though all would explain it in completely different language.)
Of course, this tendency is again, psychologically explainable by our need to think we live in a "safe" well-explained reality, rather than some unknown, mysterious universe that doesn't give a crap about our feeble attempts at comprehending it.
Personally I feel the "non-belivers" are in no way different in this respect. They may say they are open to the unknown mysteries of the universe, but that applies only as long as this universe ONLY consists of things that comply with the dogma of "only externalities exist" and they need to conform with what our thinking constructs as "logical" and what can be observed with our physical senses or their extensions (measurement instruments, etc.)
So: I think the real interesting exploration of this topic starts where the safety nets of our limited perceptions and imaginations stop.

There is another interesting topic, and it revolves around the implications of religion and atheism in regards to morality, but this post is long enough and the LSD is wearing off, so I'll leave this for next time.

 

[mbohu 77]

3 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

I think it is similar with morality, religious people take comfort in the existence of an external code, an "absolute" standard of right and wrong which they can fall back on. (and I say absolute in quotes, because the centuries have proved that that code is quite flexible). Atheists take comfort in the opposite, that we humans get to define our moral code, and we have to live with the results. It's my favorite turn of phrase: "there's no justice, there's just us"

Good point, and I would say that these two are actually not very different at all (see my above post). In essence, you take comfort in the exact same thing as the religious people: That the world conforms to your preconceived ideas of it, only that your ideas consist of "there is no purpose" and  "there's no justice, there's just us". That's really the same thing in principle. If it wasn't, atheists would not have to spend so much time and effort "refuting" believers in countless YouTube videos and making sure everyone understands how "stupid" believers are. Fact is, on a subconscious level the ideas of believers scare them as much as their ideas scare the believers. (And yes, I know some atheists "fight" believers for political reasons--but even in that case I think there is more to it if you dove deeper into the underlying psychology)
 

[wmw999 2,120]

I’ll just reply on the abortion/reproductive freedom piece. Yes, you’d think it would no longer be necessary, but:

• as long as there are new young people
• as long as they have hormones and sex drives 
• as long as some of them don’t get good information on birth control (“abstinence only” comes to mind)
• as long as some of them ignore counsel and instructions (who’d’a think teenagers would ignore advice), there will be people who get pregnant inadvertently

Abortion is a last resort. However, obesity surgery and bankruptcy should also be last resorts, and neither of them seem to be. And tobacco-caused cancer should also no longer exist  

Wendy P. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by wmw999

[BIGUN 1,051]

58 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Now if I could just get you Christians to stop trying to convert me; i.e., coming up to my door, leaving documents on my doorknob, etc.

I've actually had to threaten a couple of them with violence to get them off of my property.  How Christian of them!!!!!!!!!

Well, Jerry. It appears we "believe" in the same thing. Just tell them you worship Satan and what offerings have they brought you today. I don't have any typos... Grammatical errors, yes. But, we both suffer from that affliction. 

[SethInMI 145]

10 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Fact is, on a subconscious level the ideas of believers scare them as much as their ideas scare the believers.

Ha. As a lapsed believer, someone who grew up a Christian and left the church, I have subscribed to both sets of ideas. I can't say for sure what my subconscious level thinks, but consciously I am more comfortable now with my ideas than I was then. I don't agree with the idea that non-measurable / non-reproducible experiences are equally valid to measurable / reproducible ones, which is I think what your long post is trying to say.

When I have to face death eventually, I hope I will face it like I face jumping from a plane. Absolutely certain of how it will go? no. Confident I have prepared as best I could? yes. 

[BIGUN 1,051]

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I’ll just reply on the abortion/reproductive freedom piece. Yes, you’d think it would no longer be necessary, but:

• as long as there are new young people
• as long as they have hormones and sex drives 
• as long as some of them don’t get good information on birth control (“abstinence only” comes to mind)
• as long as some of them ignore counsel and instructions (who’d’a think teenagers would ignore advice), there will be people who get pregnant inadvertently

Abortion is a last resort.

The good news is that abortion is below 1973 levels and still declining. If nothing else; Every young male and female should use condoms, the pill and abstinence first. My concern for the young ones is the increase in STD's - HPV, HIV/AIDS, Gonorrhea, and even Syphilis   The CDC reports that STDs continue to rise in the U.S. Combined cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia reached an all-time high in the United States this past year. 

Protect them from that and we protect them from abortion also. Yes, there are certain instances for abortion. We've had this discussion before and my views have not changed.

[BIGUN 1,051]

8 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

When I have to face death eventually,

Well, now see - if you were a Christian; you need not face death, but everlasting life. 

Sorry, you left it open and I just had to fuck with you.  

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The good news is that abortion is below 1973 levels and still declining. If nothing else; Every young male and female should use condoms, the pill and abstinence first. My concern for the young ones is the increase in STD's - HPV, HIV/AIDS, Gonorrhea, and even Syphilis   The CDC reports that STDs continue to rise in the U.S. Combined cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia reached an all-time high in the United States this past year. 

Protect them from that and we protect them from abortion also. Yes, there are certain instances for abortion. We've had this discussion before and my views have not changed.

If abortion rates are declining, but STD rates are increasing it is likely the drop in abortion rates is due to lack of access. I don't think that is good news.

[BIGUN 1,051]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

drop in abortion rates is due to lack of access

The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver

[ryoder 1,381]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If abortion rates are declining, but STD rates are increasing it is likely the drop in abortion rates is due to lack of access. I don't think that is good news.

It could also be due to Fast Times at the Ridgemont Retirement Home:

https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2017/std-exposure-rises-older-adults-fd.html

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver

Yeah I have seen that before, though they appear to base their conclusion mostly on prior decades.

My comment was more based on the idea that if STD rates are increasing, it is likely that rates of unprotected sex are increasing. With that unwanted pregnancies should be increasing as well.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, ryoder said:

It could also be due to Fast Times at the Ridgemont Retirement Home:

https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2017/std-exposure-rises-older-adults-fd.html

Fair enough.

[SethInMI 145]

10 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

you need not face death, but everlasting life.

 

[ryoder 1,381]

I had my annual physical last week. The Dr mentioned that the CDC is recommending testing anyone born between 1945-1965 for Hepatitis C. I asked why. He just looked at me and said:

"Sex, drugs, and rock and roll."

LOL! 

Here is the text from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HCV/PDFs/HepCTesting-Diagnosis.pdf

[mbohu 77]

31 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

I don't agree with the idea that non-measurable / non-reproducible experiences are equally valid to measurable / reproducible ones, which is I think what your long post is trying to say.

Not exactly what I am trying to say: 
There are some aspects of the scientific method that can be used for internal experiences just as much as for externally measurable experiences, and reproducibility (is that an actual word?) is one of them. If you read some texts (modern or ancient) around meditation or other internal technologies, you can see that this has been used. Experiences of such nature can be reproduced and they are often similar in nature when you do reproduce them (if you leave out the difference in interpretation). There is also the concept that you can use this reproducibility to gauge if the experiences are genuine or not.
However, the reporting of the experiences and the judging of them will necessarily be SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE (meaning: you cannot have a team of scientists watch the meditator, or the one engaged in a spiritual ceremony or prayer or whatever and have them judge what experiences (s)he has. This can only be done by the person experiencing it herself.)
If you only value OBJECTIVE reality in this sense, then you exclude these experiences A PRIORI, and that is not based on any evidence itself, but simply a part of the assumptions of objectivistic systems.

So, no: Not all internal experience is as valid as measurable reproducible external "facts" BUT some internal experience is reproducible in meaningful ways, and others may become so in the future.
Also: Both realities are NOT the same, and should be treated differently and have different areas where they are applicable (if I am going to construct a parachute, I'm certainly going to focus on the objective measurable side of things--but if I am trying to determine the nature of experience itself, I will not limit myself to that)
You can see the limitations of the objectivistic systems when it comes to the question of consciousness, for example: It can, in principle, not deal with that essential reality. It can only try to reduce it to objective data (brain functioning, etc) which of course misses the point entirely, or explain it away as "an illusion" (but isn't consciousness required for an "illusion" to exist? What objective thing IS an "illusion"? Can you point to it?)
So, each has its realm of validity. 

Edit: So to be clear, I'd say these experiences can be reproducible but they cannot be measurable (in the objective sense)

Edited January 3, 2020 by mbohu
for clarity