how old-time religion’s archaic values are the force behind the scenes for an authoritarian regime, and how confused the good citizens of that nation are when they try to tease out the knots of how it crept up on them and usurped their version of reality.
It's deeply disturbing to see siblings against siblings, — Paula Tozer

I get it.

Totally disagree with you and Nietzsche.

God is still just another thing in human society. For the vast vast majority of people, religion and church are just another activity (unless you are priest or active cult member). Maybe people give God and their religion highest honors and praises, but how much time and thought really goes into it for the vast majority of people trying to live?

God and religion are as much a boogeyman as any other. Blame has to fall on one’s own heart first if we are to be free. Religion taught me that.

Blaming parents is typical. Eventually we grow up and realize our parents are as full of shit as anyone else.

And we are full of shit ourselves, often when we see ourselves as victims. When are you really free - when you realize blaming others creates a hollow, empty world.

Everything about me, is up to me and me alone. Not religion or anyone else. I am responsible for me.

Then we can decide for ourselves whether to listen to our parents or our priest or Chris Hitchens.

Religion is as much a force for hope, charity, and love as it is for deception and evil. It’s full of people, so what else should you expect.

In fact, religion warps the mind of those who must operate within its confines. — Paula Tozer

That’s not absolute. You can replace “religion” with anything depending on the weakness of the person. For some “atheism” warps the mind. For others “pleasure seeking” warps the mind, for others “stoic self-denial” warps the mind.

Weakness in people will always be the root of all the badness. Weakness warps the mind and blaming others for our weakness warps the mind.

Shouldn’t you say government is evil? It has laws that allow it to arrest me and kill me and force me into war and make me kill others - it is absolutist in police tactics. The Catholic Church is a pussycat compared to a decent legislature and a couple of street cops. Why doesn’t the threat of government oppression warp your mind? Like it warps minds in North Korea - and 50 other places?

Religion isn’t the bogeyman. It’s been around since before the dawn of recorded history for a reason. People are built to believe in a future, and with death getting in the way of the future for all of us, we will never let go of religion to protect the future we seek to build.

The future and our plans warp the mind.

Yep. You're right. There are a lot of wars that may not have typical religious origins. However, ideologies that are based on personal beliefs are at the root of most wars, wouldn't you say (I'm being cautious here as I can see I'll get slammed for my wordage and that has to be ok - after all I've brought up a controversial subject that doesn't seem to have its roots in traditional philosophy). I guess it depends on how you define religion (1) a system of faith and worship. (2) a personal or institutionalized system of beliefs and practices. (3) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith. With this series of definitions, one COULD argue that whatever you uphold as your belief system can be a point of contention. People can hold their beliefs as sacred even if they are secular. Even philosophers, who pride themselves on being open-minded, really aren't given some of the comments here. Everyone has a theory of everything.

Interesting. I respect your perspective. However, I still think that religious compliance is the reason for the warped perspective we see affecting our world. If people are using religion as a hobby, get a new hobby - perhaps one that actually talks about eternal love without the everlasting torment chaser.
Yep. Parents get sucked into this vortex. I did as well. I taught religious education until I was 39. For a long time afterwards, I felt like a hypocrite. 20+ years of identifying as simply human has changed me, because it taught me to stand by what I say. I struggled with the idea of opening this can o' worms, even on a philosophical forum, where people are supposed to be more open-minded, but did it anyway. It's my story, the point of which is that it is the story of many, the origin of many a secular, philosophical thinker.

The future and our plans warp the mind. — Fire Ologist

Whether the future and our plans warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective.

Yes, it is dependent upon ideology.

Actually, that is exactly what I was describing, through my personal experience. Are you questioning my ability to take such a contoversial stance? Interesting, as you don't know me...However, I must concede that I should have added a disclaimer to the post, given the need for you, superior, philosophical types to feel good about yourself.

No, I guess not. I still thought it was a cool post, though, clueless as I am. — frank

Was this your way of backing down from Hanover's onslaught? How are you clueless? Everyone has the right to their origin story. It brought us here to this space.

Well, you were being a bit of a dick, but you have a right to your opinion. I didn't sign up for this forum to be a candy ass. I have a very strong perspective and won't back down without a healthy debate. Agreed, it was a difficult go, but you know, trauma is a word slung around a lot these days. I wanted to begin by calling bullshit where I saw it. I'm not an innocent here - I taught religious education until I was 39. When I observed how people have been conditioned to follow without using critical thinking to analyze what they accept unconditionally, and how it has led to millions being led around like cattle with a nose ring by men who want to control everyone's narrative, it is deeply disturbing to me. I may also be in error here, displaying emotion, because I don't have a traditional background in philosophy. I didn't study it in university and didn't learn the vernacular or how to behave in a way that doesn't draw fire from the intellectual gods. This is simply my truth, as is my post. Dude, if you choose to be combative, perhaps its origins are based in your trauma...how would I know? :smile:

How are you clueless? — Paula Tozer

Pervasively. All the cool kids are.

Ha! Can we be friends?

Welcome to the forum, Paula :smile: .

I am sorry to hear you have experienced what seems to be the worst aspects of organized religion. However, I would challenge you to aspire to learn the strongest and most plausible positions on all sides of the various topics-at-hand and reach your own informed decision. If you get too caught up in fending off the people with unsophisticated positions, on any topic (but in this case theology), then your position will be formulated parasitically on those positions which you wish to oppose and this makes your own position equally, but oppositely, malformed as your opponents.

With respect to theology, there are many sophisticated views on both sides of the theology debate which have no bearing on the ill-formed positions people on both sides can take in practical life.

As far as some of these people in this forum go, such as @frank, they will pump you will a false sense of accomplishment by feeding into straw mans and emotion-pumped critiques of ill-formulated religious views without having the integrity to contend honestly with those who provide the iron-manned versions.

You know, when I first realized that Christians lied, I was upset — Paula Tozer

To put all of this in a perspective:

'Faith' is no more than a wish and a hope that doesn't grant its object; thus all talk of its truth is not only moot but misleading to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Blah, blah, blah, on and on, anon.

Hi Bob, thank you for the welcome. Please don't feel sorry for me, it's made me who I am.
I've been on both the negative and positive sides of a debate many times, and this one is no different in that regard. People must make a stand for what they know for sure, not quote rhetoric to support that which they have not experienced.
I have no interest in debating theology with anyone. And, thank you for the warning, but I will not be coerced into a false sense of accomplishment. As for questioning someone's integrity...I'm assuming that you have a history of debate with this person?
As for the people who have not only questioned my ability to tackle big subjects, but also suggested that the reason for my philosophical endeavors is a substitute for trauma therapy, that gave me a wry chuckle. I guess I'll gear up for word wars, brought to me by people who have no clue who I am or what I stand for. That's fair. I'm attempting to play on your field now. And I accept your challenge as I have been thinking about it a lot, especially in light of my personal theory of why an authoritarian regime is now in power in the United States. Do other people see what I'm seeing? That was my reason for sharing this post - our world has been corrupted by religion, conditioning us to be led by a poor substitute for a powerful being. And those of us who say, "This is not our issue, not our business," are complicit in its rollout. It's not enough to engage in heated debates on the internet while not only the symbolic Rome, but the whole damn world is burning.

Agreed. And I also agree that talking about its truth is moot as well as misleading - it's a psychological bait and switch that takes us away from the real picture. My point in posting this is to provide a glimpse of what happens to people when they are conditioned to be nice and to follow a leader who claims to be a sky/man/god king and leader. This is the confusion we see happening in the world when people are asked to think for themselves (they don't have a clue how to do it and will fight for their limitations so as not to do the work) and "need to believe" in something that is beyond their control, thus shifting everything they cannot explain onto something that can never be proven. I'm an artist, and this is performance art at its most convincing.

If you get too caught up in fending off the people with unsophisticated positions, on any topic (but in this case theology), then your position will be formulated parasitically on those positions which you wish to oppose and this makes your own position equally, but oppositely, malformed as your opponents. — Bob Ross

. I agree with Bob's perspective.

Years ago, I left any form of religion behind me. I do not identify as an atheist because that would mean that I identify as something I'm not. How can you be anti something that doesn't exist? A good life is not lived through what you are not. The process of negation, in my view, is to lead me to what can stand the test of scrutiny. Subsequently, I cannot say I'm a non-believer, thus making something of nothing.

If I'm in error, then so be it.

How can you be anti something that doesn't exist? — Paula Tozer

Yes, 'God', as proposed to be some greater mind as the basis of all, cannot be, for it is a system of thinking, planning, designing, and implementing, which cannot be fundamental since its part would have to be more so,

Greater beings may become in the future, so the past and its lesser is not the direction to look, for there is only the simpler and simpler there, unto the lightness of being of the quantum fields.

Quantum fields’ Presence, through transient veins,
Running Quicksilver-like, fuels our gains—
Taking all the temporary shapes as
They change and perish all—but It remains.

All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne must someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness,
Dispersing its greatness into blandness.

In between, the Basis sets a story
That gets lived by the transients within,
As life and all the stars, moons, and planets—
In a book from the Babel Library.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself.

The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Lest its parts be more-so and it be less;
It’s ever, ne’er still, else naught could happen;
The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress.

The elementaries of a type are
The same, being woven by the same weave,
Only at the stable rungs of quanta;
They’re well anchored, but they’re secondary.

Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical.

Change, change, change… constant change, as fast as it
Can happen—the speed of light being foremost
The speed of causality—o’er 13 billion years now,
From the simple on up to the more complex.

The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
When it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot.

At the indefinite quantum level,
Zero must be fuzzy, not definite;
So it can’t be zero, but has to be
As that which is ever up to something.

How can you be anti something that doesn't exist?

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. It isn’t anti-theism in the sense you are referring: it is the thesis that theism is wrong.

Likewise, religion is the worshiping of a divine deity. There are religious atheists; and there are areligious theists. I just point this out to show you how your view is parasitic on people who have tried to convert you or keep you in mainstream Christianity. This is what I really meant by what you quoted of me: your view is narrowed parasitically on one extreme view within one worldview and I am just trying to broaden the landscape for you to think about for yourself.

I'm assuming that you have a history of debate with this person?

Yes, although I love @frank to death :kiss: , they straw man Christianity all the time and refuse to engage with peoples’ responses that provide the iron manned versions.

As for the people who have not only questioned my ability to tackle big subjects, but also suggested that the reason for my philosophical endeavors is a substitute for trauma therapy, that gave me a wry chuckle.

Well, that’s an ad hominem attack and I am sorry they do that to you. I have no doubt that you are capable of reaching substantive positions on things.

I guess I'll gear up for word wars, brought to me by people who have no clue who I am or what I stand for.

See, that’s the thing though: these kinds of discussions don’t need to be ‘word wars’. It doesn’t need to be a formal debate where we try to convince the audience or where we be as uncharitable as possible to each other’s positions. Instead, this is a place for genuine, intellectual conversations geared towards knowing the truth.

Do other people see what I'm seeing?

Politically, I doubt we agree on anything; but that’s the whole point: we can discuss and learn from each other. Emerson once wisely said: ~”In some way every man is my superior, and in that I can learn from him”.

That was my reason for sharing this post - our world has been corrupted by religion, conditioning us to be led by a poor substitute for a powerful being.

Forgive me, I am not trying to put words in your mouth; but from my perspective it seems like you may have a really negative view of religion because of your horrible exposure to the really bad parts. For example, I think religion total net has done great things for humanity because it has shown us, however imperfectly, what is objectively good. Of course, this will lead us to presumably a disagreement in our ethical commitments; but, the way I see it, God ultimately has to be posited for there to be objective morality.

I assume this is the definition of parasitic that you are referring to: habitually relying on or exploiting others? If this is the case, then anyone who does not agree with the philosophy of a group and calls them out is exploiting them? Do you think that I'm relying on others to support my stance against them? Man, that would shut down everyone that I know and value for their perspective. As I see it, it's a matter of acknowledging your origins and addressing the mess that I helped create.

Politically, I doubt we agree on anything — Bob Ross

Perhaps what you say is true. However, as I don't know you, I would not say that with any certainty. I leave that to the theists. Of course, I can learn from you and from anyone who takes the time to comment here.

Forgive me, I am not trying to put words in your mouth; but from my perspective it seems like you may have a really negative view of religion because of your horrible exposure to the really bad parts. — Bob Ross

Nope. It's all BS. I can be kind to my neighbors, be a good, contributing citizen, embrace diversity in both culture and gender, give of myself through volunteering and selfless acts, teach my children how to critically think as part of their education, and fore-give you my best intentions regardless of whether we ever meet in this lifetime, without fear of everlasting torment if I don't give my life to a sky/man/god who watches me while I'm sleeping and polices my thoughts, by the way...who's good book tells me, as a female decended from the original woman, I'm the cause of original sin. All Christian religions must agree on this point, and that is, fundamentally, where our paths diverge. I got tired of being a sinner, I didn't put Jesus on a cross...so I changed my mind. I do apologize for the rant.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. — Bob Ross

Of course, many atheists today don’t formulate it like that, even if it’s a traditional account. For me, an atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe there are gods. It’s not a knowledge claim; it’s a belief claim. As an atheist I simply say I am unconvinced by any god claims, including the arguments I have encountered, from CS Lewis to Aquinas.

All Christian religions must agree on this point, and that is, fundamentally, where our paths diverge. I got tired of being a sinner, I didn't put Jesus on a cross...so I changed my mind. — Paula Tozer

Christians don’t all agree on this. Many are taught that the Bible is metaphorical rather than literally true, and that God is not a “magic man in the sky.” Theistic personalism is only one way of construing God. For many Christians, God is understood as the ground of being: mysterious, unknowable, and certainly not a person. Closer to mysticism. Your argument is really directed at a very particular account of Christianity and God.

Whether the future and our plans warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective. — Paula Tozer

Whether the religion and our God warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective.

Clever! And I agree that you are accurate - your Theory of Everything does create how you view religion. I would contend that every belief that a person holds contributes to your perspective. But my Theory of Everything cannot agree with yours in this regard - it's not "our" god. It's yours. I don't have a lord and master.

Please provide examples of your claim - of a Christian religion that does not, at its core, rely on original sin and the sinfulness of "mankind." As I sse it these constitute the core of a good Christian's beliefs: (1) Belief in the divinity of Jesus. (2) Belief in original sin, humanity's sinful nature. (3) Jesus' sacrifice that had to atone for our sinful nature. (4) Belief that god resurrected HIS son after we were done with HIM) (5) the personal need for belief, prayer, and repentance by placing our trust in the sky/man/god, who sees you when your sleeping, and knows when you're awake. HE knows if you've been bad or good...well correction...you've always been bad.
I don't care how the person spins it so it makes believing in "something" unknowable palatable, at its core is this fundamental belief.
A good human is a good human, right? I don't require superstition to be in awe of the everyday workings of nature, to be kind to people, and to celebrate my joy for life.
Tom, if believing in a mystical version of a god helps you to sleep better, why would I challenge you? However, I would invite you to consider that you've kept only one piece of the puzzle as your soother. I've been there and done that.
Why not simply enjoy what quantum physics is revealing - that all is energy, connected, and coherent?

Please provide examples of your claim - of a Christian religion that does not, at its core, rely on original sin and the sinfulness of "mankind." — Paula Tozer

I grew up in the Baptist tradition which did not accept this doctrine and took issue with it. It also rejected the notion of hell. You'll find this in Protestant and Anglican/Episcopal traditions. And in some Eastern Orthodox and some Methodist.

If you are a modern Christian who understands the Bible as allegories and you believe in evolution, then the story of Adam and Eve is a creation myth and original sin is impossible. Not all Christians are primitive literalists.

To borrow a quote from one of the prominent Episcopal Bishops in America, Bishop Shelby Spong (who died a few years ago) -

Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense...
Bishop John Shelby Spong Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy

I grew up in the Baptist tradition which did not accept this doctrine and took issue with it. It also rejected the notion of hell — Tom Storm

It seems Australian Baptists have a very different perspective from USian Baptists. I think many USians Baptists would likely declare the Baptist tradition you describe to be unchristian

The Baptists don’t have a central hierarchy and allow a range of views. The governance is congregational. There are also Literalists here. But fearful literalists have never been big in Australia.

Tom, if believing in a mystical version of a god helps you to sleep better, why would I challenge you? However, I would invite you to consider that you've kept only one piece of the puzzle as your soother. I've been there and done that.
Why not simply enjoy what quantum physics is revealing - that all is energy, connected, and coherent? — Paula Tozer

I’m an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer.

I’m an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer. — Tom Storm

Im curious what the cartoon account is in your view. Are you seeing any of that in Paulas posts or do you mean in general?

I tend to view Biblical literalism as a cartoonish account of God. I started a thread on this. If atheists confine themselves to attacking literalists, they’re just going after low-hanging fruit. So it’s a general point, and it’s also clear that the behavior of Christians, or Muslims, for that matter, has no bearing on whether a God exists. Plenty of theists, like Spong, think religions are often primitive and terrible.

Well there ARE bible literalists, so some people do believe a cartoonish thing. Of course it is also low hanging fruit as you say, the easiest attack vector against religion.

Wouldn't the behaviour of believers reflect whether god exists depend on how one is defining god and specifically some of the wisdom or rules he lays down? Like if you claim god is “all good” and believe god wants apostates killed then that contradiction might cast doubt on the gods existence?

Most religious revelation/prophecy is probably bs and I say that as someone who believes in a higher power. To much outdated inconsistencies. Nothing wrong with personal revelation but when it becomes preachy that’s when I lose interest. Even as someone who does believe in god I do not know his true nature or attributes and i certainly won’t take it from a man written book. I used to be an atheist up to my early twenties but as a grew older I had some personal experiences which swayed me rather than scripture which I never found convincing to begin with.

Wouldn't the behaviour of believers reflect whether god exists depend on how one is defining god and specifically some of the wisdom or rules he lays down? — DingoJones

I wouldn’t think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good.

What if there is a god and he’s a thug? Like the one described in the Old Testament. We can perhaps disprove that god is good as humans understand him, but perhaps he’s more Trump than Lincoln…

I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more?

Well there ARE bible literalists, so some people do believe a cartoonish thing. Of course it is also low hanging fruit as you say, the easiest attack vector against religion. — DingoJones

I think that’s right. And given this is a philosophy site I’d expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments.

I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more? — Tom Storm

In the sense that a god of certain traits (all good being my example) would not allow that/those traits to be represented by followers. Since the traits are being misrepresented with acts by followers that contradict those traits then we might think that such a god doesnt exist. If it did, surely it would do something about evil being done in it all good name?
I guess its a sort of argument of evil that Im making.

I wouldn’t think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good. — Tom Storm

Thats why I Mentioned how you define god as part of the basis of my argument above. Divine command justifies all things, not really about morality but authority.

I think that’s right. And given this is a philosophy site I’d expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments. — Tom Storm

Are the philosophical arguments much better? Are any of those cartoonish in your view?

I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more? — Tom Storm

I’d argue that the behaviour of believers has a direct bearing on whether their concept of God holds up. If being a Christian means undergoing a significant transformation through the Holy Spirit, then that change should reflect the character of the God you believe in. Otherwise, it raises the possibility that God exists, but your understanding of Him is flawed.