What's the point of a religion if it constantly updates to adapt to changing society?

Great Debates
301

It’s not that difficult to find a denomination with views that correspond to the school you find yourself in. After conversion, I read a lot. Not just the Bible, but pop theologans (for lack of a better word - the more academic stuff would have just gone over my head). I tended to find some of the more mainstream Protestant stuff to be far more interesting - they asked better questions than the Pentecostals, IMO, and didn’t think there needed to be a direct answer per se. This appealed to me. Most people seem amused when I tell them my more socialist viewpoints come from the Old Testament (even though God does tells the Jews to do a lot of stuff, the laws, to take care of the poor, the foreigner, etc). But that in particular didn’t just lead to me leaving my political party of choice but led me to look for other denominations which asked those greater societal questions.

I do still miss the Pentecostals from time to time. The Worship style can make one feel more connected to the divine in a meditative and emotional way. And yes, there are plenty of left leaning Pentecostals too (Jim Wallis, etc).

Though I knew some folks who went to a Lutheran Church that wasn’t very far from where I lived. Of course that led to the slight awkwardness of me going to their place of worship which I had previously half jokingly said I’d never set foot in… they were gracious enough not to point that out.

302

Wake me up when atheists start leaving Jack Chick like tracts in lieu of a tip.

303

When A=>B and you say A, I can clarify by pointing out that you’ve effectively said B. No translation involved, happy to be of service, etc.

304

Whataboutism?

Some religious people doing much more aggressive proselytizing is really immaterial to the question that was asked.

305

No, it’s not whataboutism. It is something that the religious do that atheists do not. That’s pretty much the opposite of whataboutism.

Proselytizing is completely different from what atheists do. It is simply different in all respects.

The ads don’t even claim that there isn’t a god, they just say there probably isn’t. The only call to action is to have a nice day.

To proselytize is to

Atheism isn’t a faith, a party, an institution or a cause. It is simply a lack of belief in God, god, gods, or other supernatural explanations for the world around us.

306

Reminds me of the joke about the Baptist tour group that gets marooned on a deserted island. After a few years, they’re found and rescued. Before they leave, they show the Coast Guard the little community they’ve built to survive: “Here’s our dormitory, and that’s our barn and food store, and of course this is our church.”

"What’s that other building, over there? "

“Oh, that’s the church we wouldn’t be caught dead going into.”

307

Then what, exactly, is being advertised on that bus?

308

An attitude perhaps?

And more than that a wakeup call to the religionists that there really are other people with non-/anti-/ir-religious POVs out there. We’re not just figments of their imagination or so thin on the ground as to be equivalent to figments.

309

No question to me that that advert is an attempt to recruit to the cause. Not much to discuss there.

That said again I think only a small fraction of atheists are of the mindset that there is some obligation to convince others of the non-existence of god(s), to win recruits to the cause.

A few related questions though …

In terms of “the point” of religion what distinctions do you draw between the institutions of religion, personal beliefs (shared to varying degrees with members of an identified group), and a non-specific god belief without tribal identification but with knowledge of the stories of religious origin held as metaphors and as fables?

Previously in this thread a distinction was posited between atheists and “apathists” … what is the functional difference between a live and let live atheist and an apathist? Is there one?

Lastly can religion have a point, a useful non-exploitive function, experienced by those who have no belief in god(s)?

310

A sincere wish for you to have a nice day.

What “cause”?

That’s the whole thing. Religions have causes. Lack of religion doesn’t.

As opposed to that being the mission statement of most religions in the US.

I think that there are some people out there who are of the mindset that they need to convince others that they are right, and some of those are atheists, so sure, if you want to nutpick, you can find some people you can point to and claim that they are proselytizing.

Just so long as you acknowledge that you are nutpicking, and not making an argument about an intrinsic difference between religion and atheism.

Institutions of religion have as their goal to continue indefinitely and to grow, as do all institutions.

Personal beliefs are personal beliefs. If enough people get together and choose to share them, then they are a group of people who share a personal belief.

That could be anything from people who think that RPG’s are fun to play, so get together Sunday nights to roll some dice, to cultists willingly drinking poisoned kool-aid in service of their belief.

In general, an apathist is someone who doesn’t really care about anything at all. It can be and oft is directed towards religious belief, but also you can be apathist towards family, society, well, just about anything. In general, I would expect them to be apathetic.

The only thing that atheists have in common is that they do not see a reason to believe in a god. Some may feel more strongly about this than others, some may even claim with no proof that there is no god. But as a group, there really is nothing useful to generalize about atheists.

Even atheists are social animals that get a benefit from being around others. Church and church activities in many places are the biggest and best social events. So, atheists can get a useful function out of others who have religion.

But, as far as religion itself, it is not something that is experienced by someone who has no belief in god(s), as that’s kinda the definition of it.

311

Umm, apatheist,

312

Riiiiight. If that’s just a “sincere wish for you to have a nice day,” then so is “Jesus Saves.”

313

And my point using it was that the nones in that survey might not have a church because they lack a belief in god, or they might not have a church since they don’t care, even if when challenged they’d say they believe in some sort of a god.
I can state from personal experience that posing as an apatheist is much safer than admitting to being an atheist.

314

Sounds just like the Christians who considered books about kids having two same sex parents as recruiting people to be gay.

If on a biology thread some creationists posts creationist bullshit, and someone who knows what they are talking about posts corrections and facts, is that evangelizing for evolution? Is teaching evolution in schools proselytizing for evolution?
One of the goals of the bus ad, I think, was to have people stop worrying about being sent to eternal damnation. Which is a thing. I’ve heard many atheists who come from religious backgrounds testify to spending sleepless nights worrying about being sent to hell if their old religion is correct.

315

No, but they were unquestionably recruiting people to the idea that being gay is normal and acceptable.

316

Difference is, you having a nice day is not contingent on you believing anything.

So books with a heterosexual parenting couple are unquestionably recruiting people to the idea that heterosexuality is normal and acceptable?

317

But functionally what is the the difference between an apatheist and an atheist?

If there is one it may be that religion (and a reaction to it, be it the institutions or the belief systems themselves) MATTER to atheists more often, and therefore impact their lives MORE, has more of a point in their lives, if only in the active negation and rejection.

Not much point in going back and forth on whether that ad is recruitment or not, and analogies that are completely off. I clearly see it one way and you another - it can quickly get like arguing over what colors that dress with the stripes!

Meanwhile I find this bit very telling:

My experience is not too different. It is a bit psychologically like how often few are as religiously observant as a convert, I think.

318

I’d say the biggest difference is that most atheists have never heard of the former term.

It really is an argument over semantics, throw agnostic in there as well if you like. They are all more descriptive than prescriptive, and anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a supernatural explanation to the universe will probably agree that the fit the description of any of them.

Now, you do have militant atheists, but nearly all that I have seen are young people who have had their first taste of freedom from the religion imposed on them by their parents, and go a bit overboard in their excitement.

319

Which the fundamentalists considered to be so immoral they made it sound like what was being done was recruiting. I will buy that the bus ad’s purpose in part was to make atheism sound normal and acceptable. Some people have a problem with this.

One small difference here. “Jesus Saves” has a very specific context, which, being Jewish, I get. Save from what? Hell. That’s addressed to everyone not Christian.
Now, the atheist message does not say anyone believing in a god will have something bad happen to them. The only difference it could make is wasted Sundays, fear, and perhaps (but rare, I hope) acceptance of bigotry because that is what God wants. That’s where they differ.

320

According to that poster, it’s at least partially contingent on not having strong religious beliefs.

Come on. They bought ad space on a bus to talk about how god doesn’t exist. It’s literally advertising for atheism. This insistence that it’s not proselytizing is ridiculous.

No, but there’s never been a social stigma attached to being heterosexual.

There is absolutely nobody writing queer-themed content aimed at children who is not cognizant of the importance of representation in culture and media to queer youth, and how a lack of that representation factors into feelings of alienation and otherness. I can pretty much guarantee you that.

This should not be a controversial statement, and would not be, if it weren’t in the context of a lukewarm defense of religion as a general concept. Which, I think, pretty well illustrates the type of antagonism towards religion that accompanies any sort of religious discussion on this board.

And yes yes, there was more antagonism in the Crusades, or what ever other tu quoque you want to bring up.