Well I'm glad it's not just me. As a mother of three, if my husband came home and said God says we've got to kill the baby I'd have him sectioned. How it ended up spawning three vast religions completely baffles me. While I respect everyone's right to believe what they will, I have no respect for those religions. If you have to cherry pick your holy book, how can anyone be expected to take it seriously?
Like you I have friends from all three, though I don't think I know any religious Jews. Which is a whole other rant, right there, it's a religion, not a race, but I digress.
I'm a big fan of judging folk by their behaviour, actions speak louder than words and all that. I do struggle with accepting their choices at times, because the legacy of bloodshed from all of them is beyond ignoring, imo. So it was helpful to imagine that it's their way of making sense of the world, because previously I was just stumped. The downside of being dogmatic is that it's not easy to see gray without assistance.
Thank you. It’s important that you took the right message from this, which is to judge people individually and independently of their beliefs. Here I judge the belief, not the believer.
I love your essay. My only critique is that it won’t reach many actual believers because it shows them in great detail what’s wrong with their religion. It’s too horrible for them to accept so they will deny its truth.
Thank you. i understand people of faith will not be affected by a single post. To be honest, I don't know for whom I wrote this. Perhaps a younger self? Were you ever religious?
No. My parents were at war for my entire childhood (religion was just another weapon for them to use). I used to think that I lost out on something important that most other kids had. Only when I started my college studies in morality and ethics did I discover the truth about religion. I have now spent a lifetime reading every “sacred” book so I may honestly say to my interlocutors that I actually know what I am talking about when I argue against religion.
However, I almost never attack the religious because I find that there is a greater evil in the world: Collectivism and Altruism.
And yes, religion is a part of this evil, but in my opinion I have identified more rational theists than atheists (and I am an atheist myself).
Nice story. Thank you for sharing. I’ve had a similar experience, having met more theists that are rational than atheists. Then again, most atheists are socialists, which is a literal religion worshiping the omnipotent god of The State. In any case, you are right: self-denying collectivism and pathological altruism are truly evil
I am totally able to relate to your basic theme “Morality has nothing to do with religion”. Though, I have been exposed to Christianity (Catholic School, also read the Bible), being a Hindu, I am unable to completely relate to your comments on Abrahmanism. My take - I believe Abrahmanic religions were devised as extra-legal measures to bring order to a lawless community. So these religions are essentially communal and cannot be easily divorced from politics. Since they were devised to bring order, they are a list of dos and donts. Hinduism, on the other hand, is at its core. a personal persuasion - there is no proselytization. The core of Hinduism, is not about do’s and donts, it is about philosophy (not sure if you have had the chance to read the Upanishads), self-awareness, attaining a state of nirvana etc, There is also a ritual aspect to Hinduism, with multiple deities and gods, which all take away from the inherent wisdom in the essence of Hinduism. Lately, communalism has raised its ugly head in the Hindu milieu as a reactionary measure to aggressive proselytization by other religious communities. BTW, I am not advocating Hinduism, I am an atheist and believe I can be a moral, contributing member of society, without the crutch of religion.
Communal religion does foster violence and hate - let me temper that statement - communal religions have done well by society, in terms of building schools, hospitals, charity establishments etc. But, in my judgement, in the balance of things, communal religion has done more harm than good. To close the subject on religion, all religions are something devised by humans, who were far less evolved and it does not make sense to regard these teachings and writings as immutable truths that retains validity, across multiple centuries
Regarding socialism (as different from communism), I am wary about demonizing it. We have evolved from total lawlessness and barbarianism to some form of civilization, either through tyrannical force, religious push etc, but I think at our current state of evolution we should step back and ask why should we live together as a society (rhetorical question, there is no real choice here), and one important reason, could be that we do not want to be subject to the barbaric concept of “Might is Right”. We are all not born equal, and socialism should not be construed as the great equalizer. But we also do not want the concept of “Might is Right” to shift from a barbaric physical to a civilized financial, intellectual or some other differentiator. So, being part of a society, is knowing that irrespective of my capabilities, I can still live with dignity, with a house over my head, food on the table, and healthcare etc. Personally, I do not want to be part of a society, where less capable members of the society are homeless, go hungry or suffer without healthcare, This could to some extent take away from incentivization, but, “no free lunch”. Now, it is possible that some people may take advantage of this minimal sustenance and shrug away from work. But, that is collateral - in a capitalist society, a rich man’s son, may live off riches not earned by him and that is no less deplorable
Well I'm glad it's not just me. As a mother of three, if my husband came home and said God says we've got to kill the baby I'd have him sectioned. How it ended up spawning three vast religions completely baffles me. While I respect everyone's right to believe what they will, I have no respect for those religions. If you have to cherry pick your holy book, how can anyone be expected to take it seriously?
Like you I have friends from all three, though I don't think I know any religious Jews. Which is a whole other rant, right there, it's a religion, not a race, but I digress.
I'm a big fan of judging folk by their behaviour, actions speak louder than words and all that. I do struggle with accepting their choices at times, because the legacy of bloodshed from all of them is beyond ignoring, imo. So it was helpful to imagine that it's their way of making sense of the world, because previously I was just stumped. The downside of being dogmatic is that it's not easy to see gray without assistance.
I imagine this will rattle a few cages.
Thank you. It’s important that you took the right message from this, which is to judge people individually and independently of their beliefs. Here I judge the belief, not the believer.
I love your essay. My only critique is that it won’t reach many actual believers because it shows them in great detail what’s wrong with their religion. It’s too horrible for them to accept so they will deny its truth.
Thank you. i understand people of faith will not be affected by a single post. To be honest, I don't know for whom I wrote this. Perhaps a younger self? Were you ever religious?
No. My parents were at war for my entire childhood (religion was just another weapon for them to use). I used to think that I lost out on something important that most other kids had. Only when I started my college studies in morality and ethics did I discover the truth about religion. I have now spent a lifetime reading every “sacred” book so I may honestly say to my interlocutors that I actually know what I am talking about when I argue against religion.
However, I almost never attack the religious because I find that there is a greater evil in the world: Collectivism and Altruism.
And yes, religion is a part of this evil, but in my opinion I have identified more rational theists than atheists (and I am an atheist myself).
Nice story. Thank you for sharing. I’ve had a similar experience, having met more theists that are rational than atheists. Then again, most atheists are socialists, which is a literal religion worshiping the omnipotent god of The State. In any case, you are right: self-denying collectivism and pathological altruism are truly evil
Precisely
I am totally able to relate to your basic theme “Morality has nothing to do with religion”. Though, I have been exposed to Christianity (Catholic School, also read the Bible), being a Hindu, I am unable to completely relate to your comments on Abrahmanism. My take - I believe Abrahmanic religions were devised as extra-legal measures to bring order to a lawless community. So these religions are essentially communal and cannot be easily divorced from politics. Since they were devised to bring order, they are a list of dos and donts. Hinduism, on the other hand, is at its core. a personal persuasion - there is no proselytization. The core of Hinduism, is not about do’s and donts, it is about philosophy (not sure if you have had the chance to read the Upanishads), self-awareness, attaining a state of nirvana etc, There is also a ritual aspect to Hinduism, with multiple deities and gods, which all take away from the inherent wisdom in the essence of Hinduism. Lately, communalism has raised its ugly head in the Hindu milieu as a reactionary measure to aggressive proselytization by other religious communities. BTW, I am not advocating Hinduism, I am an atheist and believe I can be a moral, contributing member of society, without the crutch of religion.
Communal religion does foster violence and hate - let me temper that statement - communal religions have done well by society, in terms of building schools, hospitals, charity establishments etc. But, in my judgement, in the balance of things, communal religion has done more harm than good. To close the subject on religion, all religions are something devised by humans, who were far less evolved and it does not make sense to regard these teachings and writings as immutable truths that retains validity, across multiple centuries
Regarding socialism (as different from communism), I am wary about demonizing it. We have evolved from total lawlessness and barbarianism to some form of civilization, either through tyrannical force, religious push etc, but I think at our current state of evolution we should step back and ask why should we live together as a society (rhetorical question, there is no real choice here), and one important reason, could be that we do not want to be subject to the barbaric concept of “Might is Right”. We are all not born equal, and socialism should not be construed as the great equalizer. But we also do not want the concept of “Might is Right” to shift from a barbaric physical to a civilized financial, intellectual or some other differentiator. So, being part of a society, is knowing that irrespective of my capabilities, I can still live with dignity, with a house over my head, food on the table, and healthcare etc. Personally, I do not want to be part of a society, where less capable members of the society are homeless, go hungry or suffer without healthcare, This could to some extent take away from incentivization, but, “no free lunch”. Now, it is possible that some people may take advantage of this minimal sustenance and shrug away from work. But, that is collateral - in a capitalist society, a rich man’s son, may live off riches not earned by him and that is no less deplorable