• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Coming out Religiously to Parents

daytryptr said:
Churches feed those who are hungry, shelter those in need, and do alot of good. They bring people together, and in some cases bring a very real sense of community and cooperation to those who participate. They may not be a perfect organization, some have some pretty big flaws, but you can't ignore the reality that they aren't all bad.
Click to expand...

I think that most militant atheists would agree that religious institutions of all flavors are (generally) deserving of their reputation for fostering collective solidarity and offering charitable services to those in need. The pertinent ethical/social issue, however, seems to be more along the lines of: It is exceedingly difficult to name a single benevolent, merciful, or charitable act that could be performed by a person of faith that could not be duplicated by a nonbeliever. In other words, though the benefits of community and charity clearly speak for themselves, do humans truly require divine mandate (or, even worse, threats of everlasting metaphysical retribution) as an incentive to pursue such worthy enterprises? If so, we are despicable creatures indeed.
 
Last edited:
P A said:
I think that most militant atheists would agree that religious institutions of all flavors are (generally) deserving of their reputation for fostering collective solidarity and offering charitable services to those in need. The pertinent ethical/social issue, however, seems to be more along the lines of: It is exceedingly difficult to name a single benevolent, merciful, or charitable act that could be performed by a person of faith that could not be duplicated by a nonbeliever. In other words, though the benefits of community and charity clearly speak for themselves, do humans truly require divine mandate (or, even worse, threats of everlasting metaphysical retribution) as an incentive to pursue such worthy enterprises? If so, we are despicable creatures indeed.
Click to expand...

Yup. I can't think of anything near as eloquent as that, but i 100% agree.
 
P A said:
I think that most militant atheists would agree that religious institutions of all flavors are (generally) deserving of their reputation for fostering collective solidarity and offering charitable services to those in need. The pertinent ethical/social issue, however, seems to be more along the lines of: It is exceedingly difficult to name a single benevolent, merciful, or charitable act that could be performed by a person of faith that could not be duplicated by a nonbeliever. In other words, though the benefits of community and charity clearly speak for themselves, do humans truly require divine mandate (or, even worse, threats of everlasting metaphysical retribution) as an incentive to pursue such worthy enterprises? If so, we are despicable creatures indeed.
Click to expand...

Churches are all comprised and run by family, friends & neighbours (community) and as such are flawed exactly as the individual’s running them. Churches bring together communities and families and have been doing so for hundreds of years, their meeting places the starting point, a gathering spot. Churches are the Glue that pulls everyone together to do good works for the community. Churches are made up of all kinds of people and are full of nonbelievers, part believers, little bit believers along with a small group of the devout, but people just want the sense of community, of being together, not alone or lonely. The religion is a very small part which is not mandatory to do all the rest, but in listening it’s really about Family, love, community, volunteering, giving to others, helping others, Etc. I find the worship part pales by comparison, certainly attendance increases as one ages.
 
i was told i should still go to church "for my family" when i came out as an atheist.
turns out i don't want to listen to a load of sexist, convoluted fairytale, conversative bullshit no matter who it's with.
 
Lifeinpain said:
...people just want the sense of community, of being together, not alone or lonely. The religion is a very small part which is not mandatory to do all the rest, but in listening it’s really about Family, love, community, volunteering, giving to others, helping others, Etc. I find the worship part pales by comparison, certainly attendance increases as one ages.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take much selective highlighting to make the issue quite plain. You've elegantly restated the thesis of Harris, Dawkins, et al., namely that all of these wonderful attributes (charity, fellowship, group solidarity, etc.) are clearly possible in the absence of all the arcane metaphysical speculation and Bronze Age mythology. If one aspires to religion, then so be it. I truly and dearly hope that no one will stand in their way - but is organized religion really what it takes to get people off the TV, internet, or whatever and into the streets to do some good for their fellow (wo)man? This whole 'argument from utility' is really lost on me, truth be told; it seems to make the person touting religion for ethical purposes come off as half cynical huckster and half dour pessimist, offering their magic formula to cure humankind of its ethical ills...so long as we also agree to bow our heads in observance, try to believe that we're literally cannibalizing the only son of our supposed god, and/or sacrifice dairy animals on the first Sunday of every other month, or something. I find this viewpoint mildly offensive and bizarre.

Now, I'm not saying that that was your point, Lifeinpain, but I've heard the "It's about the community" line used so many times, and it positively reeks of this latent fallacy (or cynicism, or whatever it is).
 
^
but is organized religion really what it takes to get people off the TV, internet, or whatever and into the streets to do some good for their fellow (wo)man?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, the church is just another form of power structure. However today we are (I believe) robbed of aesthetic, becoming alienated, and to consume the space of alienation people are emboldened to be 'individuals in a multicultural society'. The social institution that now holds the fabric together is money, neo-liberalism. To be sure, giving power back to the church is missing the purpose of a religious system. The problem today is not religion I'd think, it's capital and it's hedonism. Most great acts of emancipatory practice has come out of religion, even if it's emancipating itself by reading the dialect differently. Bowing your head is just a shitty form of meditation. Ideally we should be observing unified ethics instead of disorganized individualism. Or we'll never defeat hedonism which means capital will still have a space to gather its nutrients and displace poverty.
 
Shrooms00087 said:
...to consume the space of alienation people are emboldened to be 'individuals in a multicultural society'. The social institution that now holds the fabric together is money, neo-liberalism...Ideally we should be observing unified ethics instead of disorganized individualism.
Click to expand...

Though I don't necessarily disagree with what (I think) you're saying, you do realize that you're thiiiiis close to touting fascism, right?
 
In what way? I didn't say "unified ethics of debauchery" nor imply a unity within a power structure. What I did point to was a unity within the community/citizens who have grounded morals and ethics. It's been several thousand years and we haven't even achieved "thou shalt not kill" mostly because of power structures...Especially Fascism? Speaking of which the church also helped the fascists quite a bit and Hitler for the most part just helped keep capitalism alive which the church was/is all too happy to help with as well. And to make sure you didn't misread "multicultural society" this wasn't a push towards anti-immigration policies or anything of the sort, 'multicultural socities' reinforce individualism while still leaving in tact the fundamental problems of tiered societies. To quasi-quote Slavoj, "It isn't that Martin Luther King wanted to live in a tolerant society, he did not want to be tolerated, he wanted social, political, and economic justice".
 
The 'unified ethics' that you're advocating are, in their barest essence, within spitting range of the fascistic ideal of seamless in-group homogeneity. In a healthy, free, and open society, there can, must, will, and, I'd be willing to argue, should be a plethora of moral perspectives from which to draw. The gist of this concept is quite popular and should, I think, be self-explanatory to someone with a picture of a politician as his avatar.
 
Jean-Paul said:
i was told i should still go to church "for my family" when i came out as an atheist.
turns out i don't want to listen to a load of sexist, convoluted fairytale, conversative bullshit no matter who it's with.
Click to expand...

ahh to be young and clueless...
 
P A said:
I think you might want to take a big step back and assess where you live, and with whom you regularly associate; then compare your relatively small quantity of anecdotal data to worldwide statistical trends, all of which speak for themselves. Atheists/agnostics are a socially marginalized minority group the world over. Your location is listed as 'Planet Earth' - perhaps, when thinking about thoroughgoing societal issues like social discrimination, you should refocus your attentions away from your own parochial concerns and look further outward.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, and I will add one more level to it. If you have a personal form of spirituality that goes against the grain you will be an outcast just as much as if you didn't believe in anything. Religion is a sociopolitical entity and it does not tolerate non-conformity from either side of the spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top