There is more nuance than some would like to admit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people

And the thing is that religious institutions can change their official policies over time. Bigotry exists in every sphere of human life, some more than others, obviously.

Religion is not going to go away, and like anything that you cannot change, there is little point in whinging about it; if you really care then the point would be to try to educate those who are not too recalcitrant to be made to see reason to let go of their prejudices.

The promise is that of a better life in the afterlife, with no suffering, joy, bliss and happiness. It's especially prevalent in people who are very poor - I live in the Dominican Republic, I think the only country which has a bible in the shield of the flag - and whose loved ones have died, or have committed crimes - there's murders here all the time, every day, quite dangerous, nowhere near the levels of Haiti, but that's a bad comparison, cause Haiti is the worst country in the hemisphere in terms of poverty and life expectancy, but it's not a picnic here.

As for your other answer, I do not know. And have asked myself such questions. I can only assume that the biological drive to survive is so strong, that it overrides such thoughts and actions.

Again, I don't believe in any of this, and we have lots of evidence for all the bad things religions have done, but it has plenty of value for believers.

Yeah. Even though ostensibly they might say they’re not when you actually get into them you’ll find they’re not that welcoming.

The ones that are are pretty far removed from Christian teachings.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the reason the current environment in the states is hostile to most progressive attempts is due to Christianity. Without that there wouldn’t be anything in the way, or rather a significant roadblock would be gone (though I’d argue the only one since the roots are God based).

I know that without Christianity my childhood could have been spared soooo much grief and many others too.

:up:

"The opium of the masses" makes them junkies and perpetually keeps them down-and-out, dog-eat-dog ... A 'sacramental' vicious cycle. :pray: :sad:

Well they managed to convince populations they’re broken for doing nothing.

Again, I don't believe in any of this, and we have lots of evidence for all the bad things religions have done, but it has plenty of value for believers. — Manuel

"The opium of the masses" makes them junkies and perpetually keeps them down-and-out, dog-eat-dog ... A 'sacramental' vicious cycle. — 180 Proof

I have an alcoholic neighbour who is a Christian, who gets angry with his god at times ( when shit happens in his life) and he goes on a bender, and becomes a problem for the locals.
He has had a dark past and a lot of jail time. He said to me once that it's only god and 'drink' that keeps him alive.

God fantasies play that role in many lives but there are far better ways to go. God and 'drink' are quick but bad solutions in the long term, they are synthetic highs, they are FAKE.
So although I agree that theism/religion can help stabilise many unstable humans, it achieves this in the same way as substance abuse, imo.
A junkie will tell you, accurately, that drugs make him/her/hesh, feel freakin fantastic!
A Christian speaking in tongues, writhing on the ground in 'faith' ecstacy, 'feeling the spirit' inside them, at an evanhellical preacher show/spectacle, no doubt feel a similar high to a junkie.

The trouble is that its a SYNTHETIC HIGH, just like god. A natural high is soooooooo much healthier. 180 proof says it quite succinctly with the words I underlined from his above quote. @Darkneos is soooooooo correct with:

It served its purpose for a time but now needs to be let go. — Darkneos

I'd be glad to see religion phase out over time, at least then you'd be able to reason with folks better. — Darkneos

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights. — Darkneos

They invent the problem and sell the solution. — Darkneos

I know that without Christianity my childhood could have been spared soooo much grief and many others too. — Darkneos

But what I want to talk about is the phenomenon of literalism in particularly Christianity and Islam, but also Hinduism and even Buddhism, that seems to have begun in the 18th Century
— unenlightened

Ah. As opposed to the literalism which resulted when the early Church through Councils and otherwise tossed out what's been called the Apocrypha, or which resulted through the Protestant Reformation, or the division of the Church into western and eastern Christianity, for example. — Ciceronianus

The first printed bible was in latin mid15th century; Tyndale's English translation was 1522-35. It is my contention that though the great and the good might agree amongst themselves a definitive canon and ritual and so on, and enforce that upon the great unwashed, a religion founded on inerrancy and literalism cannot become a popular religion until the masses can read the text in a language they can understand. Up until at least the 16th century, the Good Book was a closed book to almost all, interpreted and translated on the fly by the local priest at his whim.

While there appears to be some uncertainty about when and which Bibles were first brought to America, authors generally agree that the first complete Bible printed in America was in 1663 at the Cambridge, Massachusetts printing house of Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson. — google

Before one can start hitting people over the head with the Bible, one needs a Bible.

In a way, the Holocaust was part of a wretchedly long (sub)culture, an abominable "tradition", that you could hope ended, though it doesn't quite seem like it. :/ — jorndoe

Anti-semitism predates the Protestants and Christianity itself.

As to whether Hitler used prior prejudices against Jews to his advantage, he did, but the argument that Hitler himself was religiously motivated is not supportable given his clear views on Aryan ethnic superiority and his classification of Jews based upon genetic lineage and not upon belief.

This attempt to present him as a misguided Christian soldier seems pretty strained to make the point that it is religion that leads to all evil.

As to his personal religious views, Hitler was not clear or consistent and debate remains over exactly what they were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

He wasn't a nuanced thinker obviously, and it is clear that religious ideology was neither central nor even a piece of the puzzle informing his actions.

I'm not discounting moments of religious terror like the Crusades, but the Holocaust wasn't one of them. The argument that religion is the source of all evil is just not a reasonable thesis, and that is what motivated this line of conversation.

You may be right. But there are some interesting associations in this space.

Martin Luther wrote the following - and it does sound suspiciously like most steps taken from Kristallnacht to the Final Solution:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …

Hitler described Luther as a great German - hence:



The writing says:

Hitler’s fight and Luther’s teaching are the best defense for the German people.”

Jawohl! :100:

There really isn't a good reason to keep it around. You can have all that stuff without religion, but a lot of the evil in the world had religion at it's heart. You'd be surprised what those who believe they are "God's chosen" can be capable of. — Darkneos

No, I wouldn't. I've listed and cited enough examples enough times to have internalized the list of atrocities - well, the European ones, anyway. I do, however, try be mindful of the opposing opinion and why so many otherwise reasoning, intelligent people desire to hold on to a faith, to ritual, the notion of sanctity, holy writ and the mythology of various cultural traditions.

That doesn't sound like a religion thing that sounds like a community thing, which you can have without religion. — Darkneos

Of course. Organized religion is a social mechanism. That is its main purpose and main (only?) benefit.

Most people are afraid to die. — Janus

But if they truly believed that death is not dying, but a passage to something better, why would they be? (Indeed, the interdict of suicide was invented by the RCC to prevent Christian serfs escaping from their masters.) They're okay with their saviour suffering and dying to enable them to live, but they'll buy kidneys from organ-leggers to put off following Him? It does happen that true believers let go of a spent life with grace and dignity (of course, so do some unbelievers). But I'm a bit skeptical regarding professed Christians' depth of faith. (especially the ones with those teeshirts)

You’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t. Most religions have something against it. — Darkneos

"It" doesn't make obedient little believers. "It" is regarded as providing some people freedom from hostages to the state (which has been synonymous with church) and thus their noses to the indentured grindstone. But the Catholics found a loophole - clever them! : monasticism. At a price.

Yes, the jealous god dies hard. — Wayfarer

The bastard has thus far shown no inclination to die at all. https://shepherd.com/book/towing-jehovah He's got more adherents now than ever before, coz they kept on keep on multiplying at His behest and for every suicide in His name, a hundred women are forced to make new ones.

Plenty of atheist dogma on display in this thread, but then, that's what you're going to get as soon as post an OP with such a title. Like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River.

Who was killed for the sport of pirhana-baiting this time?

Dogma is not only religious. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.' Political orthodoxies have their dogmas, as do many other disciplines - Soviet Communism was notoriously dogmatic. Dogma is simply the regular form of an accepted principle or axiom. In itself it is not necessarily problematic, but becomes so when it is allied with authoritarianism, which is often is. — Wayfarer

This is probably a better, more neutral way of putting dogma. But I'll protest on the central dogma -- I had the thought and put it down because the central dogma is pedagogic. Everyone knows that it's not strictly true, so it doesn't really fit in the same way. It's almost the opposite of dogma -- called that because it's useful for students who are beginning to learn, but known that it will be disbelieved in the long run if the student keeps studying.

But "Dogma is simply the regular form of an accepted principle or axiom" -- I think I'd switch out "axiom" for "belief", because I don't think dogma is a part of formal systems of inference. Or, at least, that would be very strange if it were (harkening back to the myths of Pythagoras) -- but that works for me too. And it's a more value-neutral way of putting it, which I think is important if there's to be a way of talking about dogmatic tendencies which can be shared by either atheists or theists.

I've often wondered if Mormons are protestants. They were born out of the early 1800's American rise in religion, but they were also ultimately driven out by protestants too. Accepting them back into the fold of Christianity, which does seem to have happened from my vantage now, is a relatively recent phenomena -- I recall Christians handing out anti-Mormon literature growing up.

But there are some interesting associations in this space. — Tom Storm

I still think placement of Nazi nationalism as a religious movement is a specious argument, fully understanding Hitler's use of whatever was available to him to promote his brand of nationalism.

The first line of Luther's writing you cited states, " First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians." That is not something that would uttered by Hitler or that is part of Nazi ideology.

In reference to Kristallnacht, that erupted over the murder of a German diplomat by a Polish Jew in retaliation for the displacement of Jews of Polish descent from Germany. That had nothing to do with showing the world "we are Christians."

Like I said, the thesis that all organized social evil is somehow traceable back to religion is just not supportable, and it seems quite a stretch to apply it to Nazi Germany. I also can't see how you could extend it to the various other oppressive governments over time, especially communist ones that considered themselves atheist. It just seems an attempt to force the facts to fit the conclusion that religion is inherently evil, which I see as an ironic turn in and of itself. It's a black and white good/evil dichotomy positing a Satanic force, much like you'd expect to be argued from a religious perspective.

, @Hanover
I think Mr Hitchens backs up your claim here in this 1 min clip:

I've often wondered if Mormons are protestants. They were born out of the early 1800's American rise in religion, but they were also ultimately driven out by protestants too. Accepting them back into the fold of Christianity, which does seem to have happened from my vantage now, is a relatively recent phenomena -- I recall Christians handing out anti-Mormon literature growing up. — Moliere

Did you grow up in the U.S. South? Mormons have historically been especially disfavored in that region, although that is changing.

Mormon theology is unusual enough to wonder where it should be properly placed. I guess it goes under the general heading of "Protestant" just because it's Christian and not Catholic and it's doubtful it could have emerged without the Protestant Reformation.

Their acceptance of Jesus as savior places them in the Christian camp I'd think, but I agree, they are an unusual lot.

True. I’ve softened my stance on religion over the years— it’s too big a category to make generalizations. On the other hand, things like the Christian evangelical movement in the US still angers me. I was one of them, once upon a time.

If you guys are interested in Hitler's religious beliefs, you can read them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#:~:text=In%20Hitler's%20eyes%2C%20Christianity%20was,the%20survival%20of%20the%20fittest.

They are, as I have said, inconsistent and varying over time. He was not a religious ideologue or zealot. It's just not a credible argument to make that Nazism was just yet another iteration of religion gone wrong. He is known for genocide, the murder of those based upon their genetic heritage without regard to belief. A fully devout German Christian, sworn to uphold the ideals of Nazi ideology, lock step in every way with Hitler, willing to lay his life down for the German God, whoever that might be, would have been murdered alongside the Chasidic rabbi if he were born of a Jewish parent.

:100:

Yeah, just like opium, it makes them feel good, but it could shut down options that they would otherwise pursue, maybe getting into political activism or something along those lines, because why bother? We are going to a better place, etc.

↪universeness If you guys are interested in Hitler's religious beliefs, you can read them here: — Hanover

And then start a thread about them somewhere where I don't have to read about it. Recruit for your enemy's team somewhere else, please.

If you guys are interested in Hitler's religious beliefs, you can read them here: — Hanover

They are, as I have said, inconsistent and varying over time. He was not a religious ideologue or zealot. It's just not a credible argument to make that Nazism was just yet another iteration of religion gone wrong. — Hanover

I am already quite familiar. He weaponised religion and USED religion as aid to his narcissistic rise to autocracy. I already highlighted that use of religion by the vast majority of evil leaders, past and present.
I also made it clear that I do not assign blame to god posits, for such abuse of god posits, by nefarious humans. My annoyance and Mr Hitchens annoyance is manifest by absurd claims (or just plain lies) by theists, that the Hitler regime was atheist.

Yeah, just like opium, it makes them feel good, but it could shut down options that they would otherwise pursue, maybe getting into political activism or something along those lines, because why bother? We are going to a better place, etc. — Manuel

In what countries do religious entities and their congregants stay out of politics?

Yes. I just have fond memories of the '60s and the pre-disco '70s, though I was too young to be an actual hippie.

One could go another way with the Nazism example. Namely that precisely the secularization in the west, made it possible for guys like Hitler and Stalin to usurp religious tendencies in people for their political ends, because there was a void to fill.

Isn't that was the great ideological battles in the 20th century were, a search for some kind of (secular) replacement after the dead of God?

The question to me isn't whether religion is bad or not, the question is whether the role religions or myths used to play in societies can adequately be replaced by something else, or indeed by nothing at all? And I'd say the jury is still out on that one... as a wider sociological phenomenon this plays out over centuries. We will have to see, but I'm doubtful because secularism is certainly a peculiar exception in world history.

As a side note, and maybe to piss of militant atheists some more, secularism specifically came out Christianity. It was in the times of Augustine, that a split was conceived between the worldy/temporal, i.e. the seaculum, and the eternal, the church. Only from then on a division in power between state and church was thinkable in the west. In all other non-christian societies the idea of a secular state made little sense, there was one way society was organised and religion was integral part of that... so really atheists should thank Christianity that it made secularism and atheism possible.

As a side note, and maybe to piss of militant atheists some more, secularism specifically came out Christianity. — ChatteringMonkey

No secularism before Jesus Christ? Really? :rofl: Did every human on Earth that existed before Jesus Christ (who himself probably never existed), believe in gods? Did no tribe ever live without a god to worship? Do you know for sure they didn't?

No secularism before Jesus Christ? Really? :rofl: Did every human on Earth that existed before Jesus Christ (who himself probably never existed, believe in gods? — universeness

No you probably had the odd atheist/sceptic, but there was no societal organisation that was outside of the religious/mythical, i.e. no secular state. Secularism is not the same as atheism.

Maybe you have this mixed up though. Jesus was anti-religion. He rebelled against the Jews. You must recognize that there was no Christianity at that time, so he was not promoting a religion called Christianity, he was simply rebelling against religion. So when, if, he said "I am the truth", then it was in an anti-religious context. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know that he was anti-religion. Perhaps he was. All we have to judge him by are writings made decades after his death. As to those, they were written at a time Christianity was developing. John's Gospel was the last to be written, by my understanding--at least the last of the four Gospels which have been accepted (though it's possible this particular excerpt was made later; Christians were known to edit writings to suit their purposes, as they did to those of Flavius Josephus, or indeed fabricate them, as in the case of the supposed correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul).

In John's Gospel we see the seeds of what Christianity the religion was becoming and became. More sophisticated by the rather clumsy insertion of the ancient pagan concept of Logos into Christian discourse (this was followed by the wholesale assimilation of the works of pagan philosophers, most notably Plato and the Neo-Platonists, Aristotle and the Stoics). More exclusive in its claims to be the one true faith.

The most difficult thing about understanding the New Testament is to discern what Jesus actually said, and did, when all that is provided is hearsay. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure if this can be done, though. Unfortunately. We can interpret what it's claimed he said to suit our preferences, we can point out inconsistencies in the Gospels and seek to resolve them or argue in favor of one version over another, but we can't do more than that.

I know what secularism is. How about the tribes that lived by the seasons, and had pagan based celebrations? What are you calling a state? The early city states? Nomadic tribal communities?
Much early worship was based on nature and animism. Such societies could be quite secular in the sense that respecting the forest or even manifesting a forrest deity, did not necessarily affect how you shared the forrest provided food amongst your tribe. We don't have a great deal of knowledge on how early civilisations separated their pagan beliefs from how the tribe/state functioned.
Epicurean Communes were not ran under religious dictates for example.

I would prefer to believe that Christ was speaking from a universalist perspective, rather than proclaiming the requirements of a sectarian religious affiliation ("Yo! Christians! Form a queue to the right! Others - outer darkness!'). — Wayfarer

Well, I'd prefer to believe he never said such things. But we know what the Gospel says he said. Either he said it, or he didn't. In the latter case, the author(s) of the Gospel thinks he said it or would like us to believe he did. In either case, I think, there's no ambiguity in what's said.