[Luis Dias]

Or "how I'm not such an extreme douchebag as some people here think regarding religion matters"


I've been speaking frankly here about what I think about religion, and many people here have been quite hostil to my endeavours, you know who you are . Some people have publicly and privately told me that it was perhaps not exactly what I said, but how I went around saying it. I think that focusing so much in how religion is a factor in so many bad things really irritate people enough for them to start becoming annoyed, see me as a closed minded fanatic parroting atheistic tropes and memes.

That wasn't really my intent nor who I am really, so I thought of making this thread as both an amending effort to the offended parties, and as a novel curious exercise: having what you would call an "anti-theist" atheist forcing himself to state only good things about religion.

This isn't a "therapy". I do think that religions do have positive things that, if they do decay into marginality, these things ought to be cherished and thought over of a way to "translate them" to a secular world. It doesn't mean that I see how that could go, it could be an impossible feat, and thus only possible within a religious "setting".

I don't know, but it's a curious thing to think about. In this thread I'll forbid myself of being critical to religion, but I obviously can't force anyone else to commit to the same diet .

So, here's what I think religions are (and/or were) pretty good at:



1. Sharing a transcendental desire

A world driven by scientific reasoning could become too cold, a believer would fear. And I share the same core of that fear. I also think that the desire of the transcendental is core to being a human, and the way religions organize a community and make sure everyone is aware that their neighbour has the same transcendental desire, really does humanity a favour. This desire is seen in many art forms, from music, painting, architecture, literature. This desire should be cherished and nurtured, I feel. I might even be wrong at this, but I couldn't really trust a fellow human being if he didn't have this drive inside of him. And religions do this really well.




2. Proposing a supernatural world

Awkward, innit, to see an atheist listing this one as a positive. But it is and I'll explain it shortly, by making a semantical case of what I understand about the word "Supernatural" that isn't exactly what other people may understand about it.

For me, "Supernatural" is the proposal to see human feats as opposed to "Natural", to see them as acts of volition, of will, to try to imagine an utopia that is unreal and apparently impossible. This attempt to get out of the cruel natural order and create a "civilization", an attempt to create "heaven", a secure place where we don't die cruelly, we aren't arbitrarily murdered and raped, a place where we can dream about the impossible and making it possible, that is what I call "Supernatural": the human volition.

It is of course, quite "natural" in a deep sense, but the distinction is useful and daring. And I think it was key for the constant revolutions of egalitarianism, of liberalism and freedom.




3. Churches

Inevitable, since I'm an architect, but I'm not going for the easy stuff, clamoring their amazingness, the richness of the styles, etc. No, I'm much more less demanding here. The key thing that humans make when marking a territory is to make a distinction between two types of territory: the sacred and the profane. The sacred is the center, the most secured, safe haven, the thing everyone will protect, the "womb" where everyone, even your enemies, should feel safe and peaceful. This is *always* done in architectural means, from simple vertical rock pieces to extremely complicated architectural buildings.

And I have to say, I really feel peaceful inside an (almost) empty church, sit in the chairs and just letting my mind rest a bit. This has deep psychological and sociological reasons, and it doesn't only happen in churches of course, but it doesn't mean I could be without it. A place that is solely built for humans to ponder about the transcendent means it is a place that isn't built for anything else, which means I am free not to do anything else that I am meant to do in any of any other buildings (like a library, a museum, etc.). I am free to be only with myself. And for this I have to thank religions for providing such places (and they are really beautiful, most of them anyways.... since they are designed with exactly the transcendent in mind).



I may have more (positive) things to say about religion. But I wanted to post this and see what happens, if the thread is merely ignored or what kind of discussion ensues. I'm somewhat curious in that respect.

[Ravenholme]

Cool of you to be so frank about it, but I sense this becoming another flame war between the theists, agnostics and atheists on the forum.

Proceeding to batten down the hatches and take cover. Good luck 

[Luis Dias]

You should know by now that I don't really mind about that, Raven , but I now remember that I forgot to ask the obvious question for all the opinionated commentators to really kickstart a discussion:

What are, for you, the benefits of religion?

[MP-Ryan]

Mine (and several others) objections to your characterization were not because charges leveled at deeds done in the name of religion are unjust; the primary objection which Battuta raised (and I subsequently supported) was that a generalized blaming a belief system for the actions of its followers diverts attention from where corrective or reform action needs to be addressed:  at the people who incorporate the belief system into their personal sense of self worth.

I criticize bad religious policy (the Vatican's stance on condom use, for example) and individual people who do outrageous things in the name of religion all the time; but blaming the religion as a whole for those things is a foolhardy exercise.  Christianity is not responsible for the bat**** insane ideas of a few ignorants in Louisiana; Islam is not responsible for the violence perpetrated by zealots against cartoonists.  Generalizing blame to an entire religion for the acts committed by people in its name is as unjust as the actions themselves.

I don't think you need to go about a silly exercise in how you think religion is valuable; what I was challenging you to do is realize that it isn't religion to blame, but people who set it's policies and claim to follow its creeds.  This valuation exercise is a distraction that looks at the superficial to the detriment of the core issues.  You still haven't demonstrated that you've even understood a major argument against the position(s) you've taken, and this thread doesn't help.

[General Battuta]

I agree with MP-Ryan but I still think this was a cool post and I enjoyed reading it. 

[MP-Ryan]

I agree with MP-Ryan but I still think this was a cool post and I enjoyed reading it. 

Yeah, sorry, that was harsh.  Good post, well thought-out, but misses the mark on why you were receiving criticism in earlier threads.  That should have been the last line in my original post. 

[StarSlayer]

I think Church Militant is pretty cool, though mostly the fictionalized versions. 

[Luis Dias]

Np MP, the only issue I have with your reply is that the policy I instituted to myself within this thread blocks me from actually making a detailed response


EDIT: I actually disagree with your characterization of my "misunderstanding". If you reread what I wrote, I think you'll see that I understood your criticisms perfectly. This thread is not an attempt to defuse my other arguments, it's a different exercise.

The only thing I can say is that it is not a "foolshardy exercise" in the sense of being a wrong exercise, but I may agree that it may be foolish to try to do so, because it isn't easy. Many eloquent people do exist however that make such a case. And their speeches and words are spread in the internets so go look there (or another thread), if you are into confronting that kind of argument.

[Luis Dias]

For instance, and regarding point no 1 that I raised, I think religions do a competent job at defusing this idiotic (but somewhat inevitable) feeling:

[Nuke]

im not a big fan of many religions, not to say that i hate all religion. buddism is pretty cool, same can be said for hinduism and various tribal forms or religion, old skool paganism (not that hippy wiccan crap), and the church of satan is pretty cool too. its the religions that strive to make everyone like them that i dont tolerate. now you can probably can that about all of them. i cant say i know anyone of any of the religions i listed or what their policy on conversion is.  i dont really have enough info about them to make that judgement. its not hard to make that conclusion about christianity or islam though (and the same can sometimes be said about atheism despite the fact that its not really a religion). i also like religions that keep to themselves, that makes judaism somewhat interesting.

even the big religions cant all agree on what they belive, minor details cause huge division into sects and denominations. of course all of them think their view of their religion is the correct one. i think that perhaps this kinda thing is an indication that perhaps they are all wrong, and that the "true religion" has yet to be discovered, or perhaps that religion is nothing more than superstitious nonsense. there are also those forgotten ancient religions who follow forgotten gods or practices. maybe the power of a god is proportional to the number of people that worship them. in this case it is possible to kill a god by converting or killing all of its followers. there is also the possibility that we are god, not individually but collectively, and that we are merely unaware of our own power.

then comes the issue of charity. i find it is often a tool used to force conversions. often you hear of aid being denied to people who did not convert or show up for services. many soup kitchens tend to force exposure of a particular religion on the poor and destitute looking for a free meal. many international aid organizations kind of have a secret religious agenda. and its not a far fetched conclusion to see that religion often attracts the power hungry into its structure. this was surely evident in medieval times, the church ran everything, could topple governments and dethrone kings at an alarming rate. this goes both ways, politicians always seem to pass themselves off as the majority religion. sometimes you will see a politician keep their religion, but they tend to not be successful. i think religion is far more important than race in deciding who gets elected president. if obama was muslim he wouldn't had bade it past the senate.

i could go on all day about the arbitrariness of it all. but what would be the point? people who have chosen a religion and people who have chosen none will seldom tolerate any interference in their beliefs. people who convert either never had any real convictions and just wanted to fit in, until something better came along, or were just weak and easily mailable to begin with (born again types annoy me).  perhaps maybe someone threatened to harm them if they didnt convert, this happens a lot in history. i never wanted to fit the mold of any religion, nor was i comfortable with asking the sky for stuff, and dont want much interference in my death. dont like no concept of a forced afterlife. heaven and hell both sound like hell to me. nope, just let me rot or feed my body to the poor. death doesn't scare me, in fact it often sounds appealing. thats pretty much the way i feel about religion.

[Luis Dias]

So the plus you can find in religions is when they don't proselitize, or when they are satanic? What's in Bhuddism that is so appealing?

[Pred the Penguin]

They don't proselytize... actually that's not true everywhere.

[Mars]

The thing is, you can't look at any religion, or lack thereof, as a general entity. It is a general grouping. Buddhism I think is generally more realistic in its ideals than most religions, but at the same time, "There are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison."


EDIT:

As Battuta has pointed out many times lately, there are many atheists with faith as strong as that of any religious practitioner. And I think we can all agree that there are scientists, historical and otherwise, who have made great empirical bounds while still believing in fairy tales. No one is ultimately realistic, and I personally think most people also have a sense of reality when they set their minds to it.

[Nuke]

So the plus you can find in religions is when they don't proselitize, or when they are satanic? What's in Bhuddism that is so appealing?

i was not attempting to find good points in religion. merely stating my opinions. religions that spend a fair amount of effort to proselytize others seem far more concerned about becoming more powerful than they do with practicing what they preach. its no longer about faith but control, and it just seems fishy to me.

[Bobboau]

"a place where we can dream about the impossible and making it possible"
that's what it means to be the Dai Gurren Dan!

row row fight the powah!