Does it affect me?

[Wertbag]

We all have to prioritise our care as there is simply too much in the world for us ever to hope to impact all of it.  We see starving kids in Africa but have kids in our own countries going without.  We see people asking for money for life saving surgery, but in numbers greater than our lifetime earnings could make a difference to.  We see climate change problems mentioned but know that our individual input is insignificant in the scheme of things.

We do have an expanding circle of care, with care coming on a scale rather than just being a yes/no question.  We care greatly about our kids and family, we care about friends and extended family, we will do what we can for workmates and neighbours, we'll be mindful of those in our local area and share empathy with those on a wider range.  We would often be willing to die for our family, but few would be willing to make that sacrifice for the guy down the road. 

While this can sound heartless at times, turning our backs on starving children for example, it is a practical and natural response to problems larger than we can handle.  We work on those things within our control and must give up control on bigger issues to groups with more resources to tackle those.  Usually that means leaving such problems with the government to handle.

 

In religions case there is a fight against this natural behaviour.  When ancient writings tell you to give all of your money to the poor, back in those days it was mostly a limited wealth to begin with, but within a couple of centuries we see church leaders in palaces, covered in gold and jewels.  Nowadays we see pastors with multiple private planes and hundreds of millions in wealth.  The average Joe doesn't have the resources to make an impact, but the churches and filthy rich pastors certainly could.  But they have the same natural small ring of care, so think of themselves first, their family and close friends and by the time they get to the wider community their care has dropped off.

But religion also resets your care from what matters to those closest to you, to what happens to make God sad.  If being gay is bad, then we should demand the government make it illegal.  If unbelievers are against God, then they should be restricted and blacklisted.  If our religion is right and all others wrong, then we should be allowed our teachings in schools, but all others should be banned.

Most unbelievers ask themselves "does this affect me?" and when looking at a loving gay couple the answer is a clear no.  Do inter-racial couples affect me?  Mixed sex couples adopting?  Whether the fraction of a percentage of trans people want to use a different bathroom?  Whether a girl wears pants or a boy has long hair?  Whether I colour my hair or get tattoos?  We don't have to care about these subjects because they have no impact on our lives or the lives of those we care for.  Religion however makes its followers care about such things and want to take actions against people whose decisions make no difference to the believers' lives.  

 

It has often been said that God is a big boy, so if He has any problems with how things are or how they are done, then He's quite capable of sorting it out.  He doesn't need humans to talk for him and take action on His behalf.  In fact, if we are looking at the resources to make change and have control, then an omni-potent God is the ultimate being to leave such issues to Him to sort.  If Christians actually didn't judge others and left God to judge, then there wouldn't be need of so much care to things that have no direct effect on anyone. 

Islamic groups are famous for taking this to its extremes, where they will kill apostates, people who have left and have zero impact on others are still worthy of death because their loss of faith makes Allah sad.  Being gay is not just something to be condemned but is a crime worthy of the death penalty.  What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home affects nobody else, but religion says it does in magical ways.  Some preachers will tell you that natural disasters are caused by sin, so punishing sinners saves everyone else from God's directionless wrath.

 

This could well be a contributing factor to countries will low religiosity having higher levels of prosperity and happiness.  If people take a live and let live attitude, then there is less bigotry and negativity in that society.  If gay people have to hide their feelings for fear of being brutally murdered, then it obviously doesn't lead to happiness.  Religion makes people care about things that don't affect them and in doing so makes society worse.

[AnonSan]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

This could well be a contributing factor to countries will low religiosity having higher levels of prosperity and happiness.  If people take a live and let live attitude, then there is less bigotry and negativity in that society.  If gay people have to hide their feelings for fear of being brutally murdered, then it obviously doesn't lead to happiness.  Religion makes people care about things that don't affect them and in doing so makes society worse.

 

It's all about controlling other people's livelihood to their own selfish gain and survival in keeping themselves relevant in many sociopathic ways. Religious institutions tend to attract sociopathic people who then take advantage of their authoritarian and backward ideas that should have died out centuries ago. Instead treating such backward theologies as superficial as mythology, they evolved into fear-based rules in controlling and brainwashing vulnerable people to fund their pampered lifestyle. Leaders and their brown-nosing followers eventually figured out how to keep themselves in power by inserting themselves into governing systems, collecting resources under false pretenses, and being (discriminatorily) selective in sharing such resources depending on how their recipients could further benefit their corrupt institutions and personal agendas in the long-term. 

 

Because these religious groups have influenced so much our governments for centuries, they have fooled the majority in believing they are just as credible as the sugar lobbyists misinforming the public to eliminate all fat from your diet and eat more of their high fructose corn syrup product(s). Even when scandals occurred, the consequences have become less impactful with minimal social reform afterwards thanks to the constant safeguarding and proofing by religious leaders endorsing their corrupt representatives behind closed doors. They would rather see everyone succumb to their failures so that they could gain experience all the riches to themselves and control them because apparently that what makes them feel worthwhile in their short pathetic lives at the expense of everyone's well-being. 

[pantheory]

On 12/12/2023 at 1:51 PM, Wertbag said:

We all have to prioritise our care as there is simply too much in the world for us ever to hope to impact all of it.  We see starving kids in Africa but have kids in our own countries going without.  We see people asking for money for life saving surgery, but in numbers greater than our lifetime earnings could make a difference to.  We see climate change problems mentioned but know that our individual input is insignificant in the scheme of things.

We do have an expanding circle of care, with care coming on a scale rather than just being a yes/no question.  We care greatly about our kids and family, we care about friends and extended family, we will do what we can for workmates and neighbours, we'll be mindful of those in our local area and share empathy with those on a wider range.  We would often be willing to die for our family, but few would be willing to make that sacrifice for the guy down the road. 

While this can sound heartless at times, turning our backs on starving children for example, it is a practical and natural response to problems larger than we can handle.  We work on those things within our control and must give up control on bigger issues to groups with more resources to tackle those.  Usually that means leaving such problems with the government to handle.

 

In religions case there is a fight against this natural behaviour.  When ancient writings tell you to give all of your money to the poor, back in those days it was mostly a limited wealth to begin with, but within a couple of centuries we see church leaders in palaces, covered in gold and jewels.  Nowadays we see pastors with multiple private planes and hundreds of millions in wealth.  The average Joe doesn't have the resources to make an impact, but the churches and filthy rich pastors certainly could.  But they have the same natural small ring of care, so think of themselves first, their family and close friends and by the time they get to the wider community their care has dropped off.

But religion also resets your care from what matters to those closest to you, to what happens to make God sad.  If being gay is bad, then we should demand the government make it illegal.  If unbelievers are against God, then they should be restricted and blacklisted.  If our religion is right and all others wrong, then we should be allowed our teachings in schools, but all others should be banned.

Most unbelievers ask themselves "does this affect me?" and when looking at a loving gay couple the answer is a clear no.  Do inter-racial couples affect me?  Mixed sex couples adopting?  Whether the fraction of a percentage of trans people want to use a different bathroom?  Whether a girl wears pants or a boy has long hair?  Whether I colour my hair or get tattoos?  We don't have to care about these subjects because they have no impact on our lives or the lives of those we care for.  Religion however makes its followers care about such things and want to take actions against people whose decisions make no difference to the believers' lives.  

 

It has often been said that God is a big boy, so if He has any problems with how things are or how they are done, then He's quite capable of sorting it out.  He doesn't need humans to talk for him and take action on His behalf.  In fact, if we are looking at the resources to make change and have control, then an omni-potent God is the ultimate being to leave such issues to Him to sort.  If Christians actually didn't judge others and left God to judge, then there wouldn't be need of so much care to things that have no direct effect on anyone. 

Islamic groups are famous for taking this to its extremes, where they will kill apostates, people who have left and have zero impact on others are still worthy of death because their loss of faith makes Allah sad.  Being gay is not just something to be condemned but is a crime worthy of the death penalty.  What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home affects nobody else, but religion says it does in magical ways.  Some preachers will tell you that natural disasters are caused by sin, so punishing sinners saves everyone else from God's directionless wrath.

 

This could well be a contributing factor to countries will low religiosity having higher levels of prosperity and happiness.  If people take a live and let live attitude, then there is less bigotry and negativity in that society.  If gay people have to hide their feelings for fear of being brutally murdered, then it obviously doesn't lead to happiness.  Religion makes people care about things that don't affect them and in doing so makes society worse.

 

Does it affect me?

 

It is easy for me to understand why people a thousand or two years ago could believe in the God(s) of the gaps and Abrahamic religions. There were so many parts of nature that were unexplainable at that time. But today most of these stories like in Genesis and Revelation, for instance, can be proven to be  extremely ridiculous and impossible. How can so many people with their eyes open,  believe in pure BS when so much of religion is obviously wrong, and understood as such by so many with even moderate educations.

 

it seems that indoctrination and Group-think as a youth can be stronger than knowledge and logic.

[freshstart]

47 minutes ago, pantheory said:

it seems that indoctrination and Group-think as a youth can be stronger than knowledge and logic.

This is what scares me. And honestly, its not just religion. There's a lot of group- think in so many aspects of life: religiously, politically left, politically right, in education, subcultures, social issues, etc., etc. It seems we never left adolescence: we tend to think our point of view has righteous superiority over others. And we (as a society) spend very little time trying to really understand other points of view and, instead, we focus our thoughts on trying get others to see what we see. The earlier that shit is engrained, the harder it is to undo.  Kudos to all the Ex-C s who had the guts to face the tough questions and realize it's okay to think outside the box.  They really should study the ex-C population to determine what is it that makes some people able to open their mind!

[walterpthefirst]

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”

 

Aristotle, Greek philosopher and polymath.  384 to 322 B.C.

 

This quote, coming from a man who had no knowledge of Christianity, neatly sums up how ANY religion propagates itself down the generations.

 

But what this quote doesn't explain is how sane and reasonable adults can have some kind of emotionally driven meltdown and exchange their rationality and scepticism for evidence-free belief in mud men, rib women, talking snakes, eagles and donkeys and other such nonsense.

 

Unless that meltdown is the result of something unresolved from their formative years that has resurfaced in adult life?

 

My personal opinion is that ALL religious belief is the result of uncontrolled and unthinking emotion.

 

But quite how that works out in supposedly mature and rational adults I just don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

Kin selection is a powerful genetic force.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But quite how that works out in supposedly mature and rational adults I just don't know.

 

I just started reading an old book that addresses this.  THE TRUE BELIEVER  by Eric Hoffer.  It is about how any large movement gets started.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

I just started reading an old book that addresses this.  THE TRUE BELIEVER  by Eric Hoffer.  It is about how any large movement gets started.  

Does it also include the Sumerian Texts?  

[webmdave]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

I just started reading an old book that addresses this.  THE TRUE BELIEVER  by Eric Hoffer.  It is about how any large movement gets started.  

 

I love that book. Hoffer was a very unique man. 

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, freshstart said:

This is what scares me. And honestly, its not just religion. There's a lot of group- think in so many aspects of life: religiously, politically left, politically right, in education, subcultures, social issues, etc., etc. It seems we never left adolescence: we tend to think our point of view has righteous superiority over others. And we (as a society) spend very little time trying to really understand other points of view and, instead, we focus our thoughts on trying get others to see what we see. The earlier that shit is

ingrained, the harder it is to undo.  Kudos to all the Ex-C s who had the guts to face the tough questions and realize it's okay to think outside the box.  They really should study the ex-C population to determine what is it that makes some people able to open their mind!

 

I expect a lot of indoctrination is related to the parents and the extent of free thought allowed. Many parents say there is only one way to believe, and if you don't follow it you'll go to hell. I was lucky, my dad didn't care and only went to church twice a year, and my mom said to study religion in the library, where I could study many religions including non-christian religions. This enabled me to become an atheist at a very young age even though I continued going to church with my family every Sunday for many years thereafter.

 

Unfortunately , over the years, I also found Group-think very much entrenched in science, one of my chosen academic fields of study.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Does it also include the Sumerian Texts?  

 

Not that I know of.  This book was published in 1951, and is mostly about political fanaticism.  Why do you ask?

Perhaps Dave can answer your question.  Or I will after finishing the book.