Why does religion make us so uncomfortable.

Great Debates
21

No mead at Beltane?!? That seems a little harsh, don’t you think? Perhaps you just need … hmmm, let me think, yes, perhaps a good spanking! :wink:

And now for something completely different:

I’m afraid I would have to disagree. Negative religious comments (i.e., negative comments made by members of a religion about other persons who hold different views) create a great deal of discomfort for many people, even though we often refrain from reply and/or overlook said comments (or, as you put it, “filter out such nonsense”). I think that many religious people (particularly those in a homogenous environment and/or mainstream religion) are totally unaware of how often they make or hear negative comments, simply because such comments do not catch their attention. At the very least, that is the definite impression I get almost every time I get into one of these conversations.

Evangelizing by example doesn’t bother me in the least - I hold great respect for a few individuals who lead exemplary lives, and I am quite aware that some of those individuals base their lives and their example on their religious beliefs. However, the minute you open your mouth (unless requested to do so), you are no longer “evangelizing by example” - you are simply proselytizing like all the rest.

People who are happy and secure in their life and their religion rarely disturb me, as they are usually also comfortable with my happiness and security in my life and beliefs and generally don’t feel the need (or at least don’t succumb to it) to evangelize, nor to make comments. IME, of course.

Let me explain this again, because I suspect you missed it. If someone is “hoping [ I ] will come to know their God because … they are happy in their life, and want the same for [me]”, that implicitly states that there is SOMETHING WRONG WITH MY LIFE AND MY BELIEFS. That is a negative comment, even though the person making that judgment rarely can bring themselves to comprehend this perspective.

'Tis true. As Dangerosa pointed out, TMI is TMI, whether about your love life or your religious one.

Huh? I’m very confused. How did you come up with this? To the contrary - several people in this very thread have, in one way or another, said that such statements do make them uncomfortable. Am I missing something here?

22

So in other words, it’s the promise of salvation or the threat of damnation keeping you from killing me? Raping people? Stealing from people? Abusing people? And because you can’t fathom having any self-control, or even being good to people for the sake of being good, than atheists must feel the same?

How do people come to the premise that they shouldn’t hurt others? Well, it’s like this. Do you enjoy being beat? Are you thrilled when people steal your possesions? Do you like it when people call you cruel names? Well, if you answer “no” to all these questions, what makes you think others would like it?
Believe it or not, “The Golden Rule” has been around a lot longer than Christianity.

23

Pepperlandgirl, you might want to read Amok’s post again. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

:slight_smile:

24

This is the direction I’m leaning. In this particular culture, we have certain “norms” that we adhere to in polite conversation. One of them is discussion of the topic at hand, for example. So that if I’m talking about how I’m excited about the upcoming weekend and you reply, “Yes, it’s such a blessing of the Lord, God Almighty to have these two days off” it’s stretching the topic of conversation enough to be really awkward.

Secondly, we know that in certain company we don’t discuss things like religion, politics, and what we like to do in our bedrooms. Injection of these topics into conversations with those for whom it is inappropriate (mere acquaintances, casual friends, etc.) is most annoying. It sets up a potentially argumentative or defensive situation. Since we know the person who opens a conversation by asserting “The Bulls are the greatest basketball team ever!” is willing to argue their point, we can also assume that someone who vocally adheres to a particular point of view about religion is willing to do the same thing. Anyone that vocal about it certainly believes THEY are right and anyone else is wrong and are not concerned about offending those who believe differently. So it puts the receiver of said comments in the position of potentially preparing to ignore proseletyzing, argue your position, or search for an escape route from the offender’s company.

It’s not my discomfort with religion that’s at issue here. It’s being drawn into an inappropriate conversation, and suffering proseletyzation. During discussions about religion, this would be appropriate perhaps. During other discussions, it’s about as appropriate as a comment about how I got laid last night.

-L

25

I was going to enter into a lengthy explanation of how religion is (or should be) essentially the most important thing in the universe, and that disagreements over it could (and do) rightly lead to huge conflicts that would render our polite, diverse society impossible.

But I think SexyWriter’s explanation is probably more accurate.

26

It’s so irritating to lose your post four times in a row…

Anyway.

[/quote]

SexyWriter: Yes! Eloquently put.
'Round here, God is credited or invoked for sports events, weather, traffic conditions, road hazards (avoidance thereof), health, wealth, convenience, politics, children (acquiring thereof, lack thereof, habits thereof, et cetera ad infinitum), livestock, pets, conveyances, employment, parents (see children), siblings (see children), other family members (see children), friends, acquaintances, food, work, not working, recreation, … shall I stop now?

Religious comments are likely to be inserted into any conversation at any time. I’m talking positive ones, here, “Thank God…”, “God willing…”, “With the blessing of the Lord…”, and so on.

I understand that these folks truly feel grateful (or hopeful or whatever is appropriate to the sentiment expressed), but usually they then look at you expectantly, waiting for you to chime in with the paean and get miffed if you don’t. (They tend to get really offended if you make the sort of comments that you’re thinking about…)

Their comments aren’t really offensive, they just create a very, very, very awkward situation, because the comments are inappropriate for the circumstances and conversation.

IMO, it goes back to the homogenous/mainstream thing - the underlying assumption is that of course everyone around thinks and believes exactly the same way that you do.

27

Ok, my new rule when participating in Great Debates
Read thread three times
Write response two time
Post once
That way it’ll cut down my chance of looking like an Ass.

28

Back after a few busy days.

Yes, that was me.

It was written:

Almost. Right is right because there is some objective, transcendent value by which we can judge. Without such a standard, all morality is entirely arbitrary.

Saying someone “should” do something or “shouldn’t” do something is meaningless unless you can justify the word with reference to some real standard. Ultimately, atheists tend to fall back to some standard like “human happiness” or “freedom” or “compassion” or “do unto others so that they do unto you”. My point is, human happiness (if atheism is true) means nothing more than a pattern of electrical activity in the brain that is different from the pattern corresponding to agony or boredom. After you and I are dead, I cannot see how atheists can prove that anything a person does before death can possibly affect that person. Mother Teresa and Pol Pot, for instance, are in exactly the same position now (according to atheists). After the sun goes nova, it will make no difference at all what anyone did on earth, and therefore any attempt to increase the amount of human happiness is just as meaningless as, say, devoting your life to torturing puppies. If there is no objectivity to any standard, any standard is purely arbitrary.

Please note that I am not trying to say that atheists are any more likely to act immorally than theists. What I am saying is, given the truth of atheism, the question of whether an action is moral or immoral is meaningless.

How deep is a hole? How long is a piece of string? Without some standard, these are meaningless questions. Why is human happiness important? Why should I not simply commit suicide (or murder)? Without some standard, these are also meaningless.

For atheists -

What is the basis for your morality? What makes it any better in the long run than sociopathy or suicide?

Gotta run, but I will be back. Religion may make people uncomfortable, but it does get to basics rather fast!

Regards,
Shodan

29

So, Shodan, what is the objective, transcendant value by which we should judge our actions, and how do we know what it is?

30

For atheists, there ain’t any, which was my point and the reason why atheists sometimes get testy when discussing religion. It’s like arguing with creationists. On some level, they either know they are wrong, or else contemplating the idea that they might be wrong makes them uncomfortable. Heck, it makes me uncomfortable, too.

Would the rest of the list say that we are in general agreement that without reference to God or something similar, morality is a meaningless construct? Usually when I raise this issue, I get more of a struggle.

Regards,
Shodan

31

Shodan, I believe you are a Christian, right? You are therefore arguing that you do have an objective standard against which you can measure whether or not actions are moral. So, what exactly is that objective standard? What sorts of things are immoral, and what sorts of things are moral?

32

Uh, Kid, to tell you the truth, I’m ANNOYED by that sort of comment. I’m not “made uncomfortable by” religion – I’m annoyed by it.

33

Why bring “God or something similar” into it? Why not have the courage of your convictions? Why not just say, I (I, me, personally, on my own) belive that X is wrong? Or Y is right? Period. Seems to me that claiming that “God says X is wrong” is just a quick shortcut way to try convince people that your opinion is the RIGHT opinion; easier then coming up with a real defense of your ideas.

34

**Shodan wrote:

For atheists, there ain’t any, which was my point and the reason why atheists sometimes get testy when discussing religion.

Shodan**, which atheists have you been talking to? The atheists here have always made eloquent defenses of their moral principles. I suggest you ask them or start reading some Kant.

35

Kid_Gilligan wrote:

I would feel uncomfortable by somebody saying, “I really feel the blessing of the Lord today,” for the same reason that I would feel uncomfortable by somebody saying, “A homeopathic remedy cured my sister’s cancer.”

Namely:

I know that what they’re saying has no basis in evidence. I want to say to them, “Maybe there is no Lord and you just plain feel good today,” or “Her cancer probably went into spontaneous remission for reasons that had nothing to do with the homeopathic remedy she was taking.” But I know that if I do say these things, I will only end up alienating that person. My words certainly will not change his/her mind on the subject of the Lord, blessings, or homeopathy.

So I hold my tongue. And that makes me feel uncomfortable.

36

Shodan:

Well, this previously mid-western-WASP-fundie-creationist turned agnostic/borderline atheist non-creationist cynic would say that you’re putting the cart in front of the horse.

That early man figured out some basic moral codes to let the tribal members get along with one another, and invented religion after caveman Bob said “screw you, Joe! You ain’t no better than I am, so I’ll boink your woman if I damned well please!” Religion kept 'em in line, and the tribe harmonious. Necessity is a mother.

I would rather that we share a somewhat similar moral code for the sake of peaceful coexistence than worry about the mechanism from which such code is derived. IMHO, the lopsided focus on mechanism has created more problems than the code itself.

The “reference to God” need not be an invocation to a nominal deity, just to a set greater than the individual.

Atheist can get the same effect as a “reference to God” by simply saying “for the good of a peaceful society, and all peoples everywhere” in deriving their moral constructs, without sacrificing any more validity than an appeal to an other-worldly force.

37

Shodan:

Well there isn’t a “standard,” per se. Or, more specifically, there are 6 billion + standards; it’s completely subjective. I care about human happiness because it seems to me to be the most useful and/or least arbitrary standard by which to judge actions. However, as has been asked already, why is appealing to God’s authority any more valid or meaningful than appealing to human happiness?

See above. Human happiness tends to be the most important factor in any “ethical” decision that I make. Utilitarianism is better than sociopathy or suicide because it is more likely to further my ultimate end (human happiness [or my happiness, when you get right down to it]). Of course, your ultimate end may vary. Like I said, it’s all subjective.

38

Shodan wrote:

Need I remind you that the early Christian church had to invent the notion that suicide is a “sin,” to keep people from committing suicide as a means of getting into Heaven quickly?

39

It’s them damn pews, especially the ones without cushions.

40

kniz: And don’t forget those starched, stuffy “Sunday” clothes you have to wear.