How do you feel about religions other than your own?

[BigT]

I’m a big fan of what C.S. Lewis said in his Narnia series about the guy who worshiped Tash. I don’t know that it’s accurate, but I can’t disprove it, either. I already serve a God who had two different covenants. What’s to say there aren’t more?

We’re dealing with faith here–something for which there is no proof. I can’t prove those I think are wrong that they are wrong, just share what I think is right.

Plus, I know that absolutely no argument will ever convince me to give up my belief–it’s something I firmly decided. But then, obviously, others can decide that, too. I just have to hope that, if God isn’t the guy I think he is, he wouldn’t be so cruel as to allow me to be raised thinking he was different and then punish me for that.

My God rewards those who earnestly seek Him. If they do so as a Jewish person or a Muslim or a Buddhist or whatever, it’s up to God let them know.

As for atheists and agnostics, I can’t ignore the appeal of their logic, even if I think the downsides outweigh the good sides. I can’t hate anyone who is not a bad person, and even that hatred for bad people is about their actions.

[Clothahump]

I’m agnostic. I found out a long time ago that all religions are a lie. Religion is the single most harmful and damaging thing that mankind has ever dreamed up to inflict upon itself.

[Voyager]

@Ramira

You decide to define away their atheism… well then there is no basis for any analysis as we are in the world of the True Scotsmen.

people do not kill for “religion” as an abstract thing, but some do for a specific version of a specific belief…

But if you want your true abstraction, ça va.

No I’m not defining away their atheism, I’m just saying it was not a motivation for their actions. If you think it is, you are invited to present evidence.
True, the religious kill because they think god told them to, or God’s representative did, or that their enemies were heretics or blasphemous. But atheism is only an abstract thing - so by your own words you admit that no one ever killed anyone for atheism in general.

[AHunter3]

@Voyager

I understand that the acknowledgement that it all might be wrong is common today. possibly as a way of dealing with our increasingly diverse society.
But I am interested in your claim that religion cannot (not usually does not) give a claim to certainty.

I think you’ve misconstrued me. I didn’t say religion usually does not give a claim to certainty. I said religion cannot do so legitimately. In essence I’m a theistic person pointing to organized religion and accusing them of selling bad goods, which is, of course, an honored tradition amongst us fringe-prophet types.

Don’t you think that God can ensure that your understanding of his message is correct?

And just how would I know that it is indeed God’s message? Because God said so? Because the preacher-man said so? Faith… yes, I can have faith in the ability of my heart to tell me “yes this is truth” but that faith has to be accompanied in equal portion by what they used to call “humility”, which doesn’t mean some kind of self-abasement but instead means “I could be wrong about this and nothing is ever going to change that”.

And God can certainly give signs that it really is God - he did that for the Patriarchs and for Moses. If I thought God was talking to me my skeptical nature would not accept it unless I got some factual evidence, for instance predictions.

If Superman (of DC Comics fame) shows up and can fly and melt steel by glaring at it, that doesn’t make him God. If Zorena, foretuneteller supreme, shows up with her crystal ball and can accurately tell me what tomorrow will bring, that doesn’t make her God. I’m not easily sold on signs and proofs.

Meanwhile… you once wrote this, in another context:

[QUOTE=Voyager]
You are assuming that the only part of your brain which can make a decision is the conscious part. But it is perfectly feasible to make unobserved decisions in our subconscious. My subconscious solves problems and comes up with creative ideas all the time.
[/quote]

I use the word “God” because I think my use of it is consistent with at least some of how it has been used in the past — not by the believing follower types but by the deeply moved types trying to describe experiences that were hard to put into words. I do consider God to be a sense of identity — not an illusion that is “really” the subconscious, but when I am in touch with God it is certainly a process that is taking place inside my brain. (God doesn’t appear on a hologram projector in front of me or anything). God is not merely a part of me, but I am a part of God and God is not, therefore, only outside of me. Inside me is where I am able to establish that communication. Or communion, if you prefer.

[Nava]

@Dinsdale

Second, as you acknowledge, people intolerant about others’ choices in music are a PITA.

To me it seems to be you who doesn’t acknowledge it, or how many of them are out there.

[Ramira]

@Voyager

No I’m not defining away their atheism,

it is hard to see not

I’m just saying it was not a motivation for their actions.

?? It was fundamental across the marxists movements, formal athiesm. It has motivated numerous and repeated - over 150+ years - bloody anti-religious actions against both the active and the quietist movements, against majority and minority.

If you think it is, you are invited to present evidence.

It is hard to see how any evidence will not be hand waived or ‘explained’ away…

• so by your own words you admit that no one ever killed anyone for atheism in general.

No one has killed “for religion in general” either. They have killed for a specific belief, a specific ideology. This is an extremely stupid statement that is nothing but denialism of a true believer.

[Ramira]

although I see no changing in the Believer belief system, on just the issue of the Communist approach and fundamentally including athiesm as a motivating precept,there is much literature and evidence. It is simply astonishing to find a pretension otherwise.

The elimination of all religion and its replacement with atheism supported with a materialist world view was a fundamental ideological goal of the state.[1][2] To this end the state conducted anti-religious persecutions against believers that were meant to hurt and destroy religion. It was never made illegal to be a believer or to have religion, and so the activities of this campaign were often veiled under other pretexts (usually resistance to the regime) that the state invoked or invented in order to justify its activities.[3]

it is simply surreal to pretend that the athiesm was a fundamental motivator.

[Jack_Batty]

You’re implying that Atheism was the goal with Communism the tool when the opposite is true. The authoritarian communists weren’t quashing religion because they didn’t appreciate those beliefs but because those beliefs got in the way of their authoritarianism.

[Ramira]

The Communists took action against religious groups that in no way got in the way of their authoritarianism. Athiesm was a profound goal in and of itself, from a belief religion itself was bad and holding back the realization of the ideal theoretical removal of the oppression. Your narrative simply does not match either the historical facts or the rhetoric of the Communists.

(of course to avoid the misunderstanding or deliberate mischaracterization, I am not making any statement of athiesm always producing communist type oppression)

[DrForrester]

I have to say that the most recent turn in this discussion, regarding whether the elimination of religion by Stalin was a goal or a tool used to achieve a different goal, is a most interesting subject… the details of which I, personally, am ignorant. I think if it has not been explored already by historical professionals, it certainly should be.

In other words, this is a question which should, in principle, be answerable.

One thing that is certainly true is that it does not go towards answering the question asked by the OP.

[Ramira]

quite right no more.

[Voyager]

@Ramira

although I see no changing in the Believer belief system, on just the issue of the Communist approach and fundamentally including athiesm as a motivating precept,there is much literature and evidence. It is simply astonishing to find a pretension otherwise.

it is simply surreal to pretend that the athiesm was a fundamental motivator.

Nothing in this article says that anti-religious persecution was done in support of atheism unconnected to Communism. Even believers who swore allegiance to Communism were supported.
And, from the article

The attack on the Orthodox became more generally an attack against all religions around 1927. Sects that had originally been praised in the official press for their loyalty and hard-work,[54] despite their religious convictions that were problematic to implementing Communism, began to be demonized in the late 1920s. Even when these other religions tried to reaffirm their compatibility with Marxism and their loyalty to the state, but this was rejected in the official propaganda that increasingly depicted all religious activity as harmful and in contradiction with Communism.

The non-hierarchical nature of some of these sects made them appear even more dangerous to the state, since they could not be as easily controlled as the Orthodox Church that worked according to a strict hierarchy.[55] Finnish Protestants began to be attacked in 1927. Mennonite communities left the USSR in large numbers as a result of the hostility against them; 13000 fled in 1928.[56] The Dukhobors had been relatively untouched by direct anti-religious up until 1927.[57] Adventists had originally been very hostile to the new regime until 1924 when their leadership declared loyalty to the communist state [58]

The change in policy may have reflected both a growing confidence in the state’s capacity to persecute religion such that it now felt safe it broadening the campaign, and it may also have been a result of growing influence of the Society of the Godless (founded in 1925).

The need to attack some of these sects may also have been produced from a need to justify the liquidation of the religious farm communes, and the fact that some of these communities were filling the void left by the Orthodox church after it was attacked and many parishes were closed.

All this persecution was connected to communism.
I don’t know what you mean in your previous post by “formal atheism.” I’m unaware of any such thing.
The Russian Orthodox Church was directly connected to the Tsars and did not exactly support Lenin in the war. Plenty of reason for the Communists to attempt to destroy them when they won.

Oh, and I agree that general religion never hurt anyone. The only believers in general religion I know of are deists with a vague belief in a universal spirit. I’m unaware of any of them hurting anyone in the name of religion. But most religions come with specific doctrines and dogma, and that is where you run into trouble.

[Ramira]

this is a hijack and it is rude to continue, I have dropped this.

[Dinsdale]

@Nava

To me it seems to be you who doesn’t acknowledge it, or how many of them are out there.

I do not understand this comment. Would you care to elaborate?

[DocCathode]

I didn’t see it til it was already 3 pages long.

I’m Jewish. All the great sages of my faith agree that any person who is righteous shall be rewarded by G-d. They also agree that one does not have to be a Jew to be counted righteous.

So, when it comes to other faiths, I judge them only on whether they teach the golden rule. Since damn near every religion teaches kids to play nice, I have no problem with them. One of my best friends worships the gods of Asgard. I’ve got friends who are neo Pagan. I’ve got friends who are atheist. They all strive to be their brother’s keeper.