this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
53 points (84.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27799 readers
1452 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

First, I don't know where I have to put this kind of question on Lemmy so I'm asking it here. Marx viewed religion as a negative force, often referring to it as the 'opiate of the masses.' If someone is religious and also identifies as a Marxist, do you think that's contradictory, or is it just a matter of mislabeling themselves? Would it be more accurate for them to call themselves a socialist instead of a Marxist?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

There is something wrong with religion, it’s a rejection of reality.

Ideally society should be able to act rationally and make evidence based decisions. To reject such basic facets of existence and to substitute them with outlandish stories does not help, it only holds us back.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You should judge these things by their outcomes. If someone is a decent person, because they think it will please their invisible friend in the sky, I'll take it.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

But they only think of themselves as decent. Religious thought stunts one’s ability to make moral decisions in changing circumstances.

Sure, my pa is ‘decent’ and considered very kind by most, but he uses his religion to keep from having to learn to deal with his gay and trans offspring in a humane manner. His religion is explicitly harmful on those subjects even though he is otherwise mild mannered and ‘nice’.

Religion makes followers into lesser, less-flexible versions of themselves. This is not a good outcome.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

From my perspective, organized religion predisposes people to being easily brainwashed.

Someone that is a decent person BECAUSE of their invisible friend in the sky will also do and permit evil things if they are convinced that it pleases invisible sky friend.

I'd honestly rather people that "need" religion to "be good" just be bad. Then we can weed them out easier.

[–] 211@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There is something wrong with religion, it’s a rejection of reality.

Few of us are 100% absurdists, most of us reject reality in some way. Let the religious have their delusion, and you'll have yours (that decisions should be based on most reliable evidence on what would most advance the utilitarian goal, probably?), and I'll have mine (the same, except when it might have really interesting consequences).

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Depends.

There are phenomena we can't explain. So there is room in reality for things beyond our understanding, which traditionally are filled with myth and believe. However, I agree given that for basically every claim religion has put forth science has been able to demonstrate non-supernatural causes, it only seems logical to assume that this will still be the case further down the line.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

About the things we can't explain yet, we should be honest and the only moral thing is to say we just don't know. Lying and pretending otherwise is immoral and wrong.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

There is a difference between lying and believing.

We know that plants have evolved along every other living being on this planet. Yet for an ancient farmer sowing their field, asking "who or what sowed everything else around me", the assumption of some godlike original farmer being is reasonable. So, believe in and of itself is not immoral. Believe contrary to better knowledge is.