Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, 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 spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just 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.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
If you're really interested in an answer and not only trying to dunk on religious people: I'd suggest reading a few philosophical critics of religion. Like Feuerbach and Marx.
Religion always fulfilled a certain function to people. Way back, it was used to answer questions which have been properly answered by science (where does the sun/thunder and lightning come from, etc.). But that's not the whole picture of religion's function in society.
People still have an urge to answer questions science can't/won't answer (what is right and wrong? *why are we here? how should we treat each other?). Religion fulfills the function answering a subset of these questions.
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer. Suffering is inherently unpleasant and it morally follows that we ought to avoid inflicting it on others. (As basic and concise as I can be.)
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs. One religion can justify terrorism while another dictates that we must sweep the ground in our walking path to avoid killing insects (Jainist monks).
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc. When one reads religious canons, they are picking and choosing concepts that already align with their moral/ethical beliefs. That's not to say religion can't play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists). He's a good read on this.
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha's bald head. Source
Most Christians would morally disagree with that disproportionate punishment of children. That's because their moral beliefs are derived from outside of that canon. There's plenty of other examples (including in the New Testament) in which Christians reject. They are using their existing moral beliefs to interpret the Bible.
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence? Cosmic chance is a sufficient answer in my opinion.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the efficacy of religion in actually answering those questions.
I'm not saying that you can reach verdicts about morality without religion. But you've left the realm of science which was proposed as the religion killer.
It's about as bad as science. Look at all the atrocities which were "justified" by science. E.g.: racism, eugenics, ...
You do realize that religion is a societal construct, right?
Yeah... That was my original point...
What exactly is it you are trying to prove? Why are you trying to dunk on Christianity? I don't believe in god and I know of all that fucked up shit done in the name of the lord. I wanted to give an explanation of what functional role religion can have for humans.
No, but try making people stop asking that question.
Sorry if I'm judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
I'm not religious myself. But I have dear friends who are very religious and we literally never differ when it comes to questions about religion/morals. They belive, I don't. I know it's important to them and I hate it if some edgy atheists reduce the topic down so much. Not as much as I hate radical christians/muslims/jews being hypocritical asswipes. But religion probaply didn't make them asswiper.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
You shouldn't be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
And I'm not "dunking" on Christianity. It was just an example. You're misframing me as an anti-theist, which I'm not.
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it's the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one. For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Racism, speciesism, and extremism/fascism plays a part in those examples I listed as well.
Well, you know. Maybe I've read a bit much between the lines. But I think your last comment just wasn't completely in the best of faith. I've read paragraph per paragraph and once I've read a bit further (after formulating an answer to that specific point), I see some sort of excuse of how your really don't suggest the best stuff. I must say: I felt a little bit like you tried to insult me just a teeensy bit, by taking back some of the things you wrote two paragraphs before. And I feel a bit bullshitted if someone replies to me like that.
Could you please talk like a human being? Who talks like that? Get on with it!
Yeah, well it's less about what you say in the discussion, but more the way how you say it. I feel like you're a bit ... sketchy with how you throw your horrible arguments and excuse them two paragraphs later. Let's say, I had to jump to conclusions, because you said some seriously bad stuff and I had to stumble a bit during your text. So please talk like a human being? Please remember that english is not my first language and I'm not the best at communicating by text in my second language.
Didn't feel like "simple conversation". More like "debate bro says some heinous shit and tries to get away with it " vibes. Maybe I'm not the one at fault here by being illogical, but rather someone in this conversation has said some a bit... right-wing stuff.
They're not unfounded. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. You're seeming a bit like a dick. That's what I was talking about.
Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Whoooo boy. Your first actual point it it sure is... a doozy. Where shall I begin?
That's one hell of a statement you make there. Surely, you can't mean that in no point in history, science has ever been the justification for carrying out heinous acts. (in the business, we call this...)
Where are you getting these examples from? Why are you talking like you've made any point to disprove any of my statements by naming these random examples? I'm afraid you're not getting my point? In what way would I have claimed anything about these racist/speciesist practices? And then you claim that...
Yes, you are correct. The name of science is never to blame for these things... or is it?
Tuskegee, animals, Nazi experiments. Why do you mash two human and one animal examples together? We were talking about humans, were we not? Why would you compare a human to an animal? Except... "Race" scientists have been claiming for centuries that africans (or less aryan peoples) are inferior to the human race. There are science books still used in education today claiming that black people have a higher pain threshold and other stuff in which the "science of the time" justified why some people can be treated like animals... or slaves. Mengele was standing on the shoulders of race science when he thought that it is ok to torture non-aryans. He was not a lunatic. He was a respected physician for the time, contributing to science. ... and today we know, he was a monster. But he, as well as the people running the Tuskegee Experiment were raised on the "scientific discovery", that non-white people are not human, justified for slave trade. You can even go into the origins of science in the west: In ancient rome or greece. They were f-cking slave cultures. You can't have a slave culture and reach that level of "civilisation" without some sort of scientists trying to justify, why we have to mistrust our intrinsic instict to treat our brothers and sisters with respect and instead bind them as a slave. That was the science of the day, my friend.
So, you were saying that science didn't justify racism? Like... ever?
Who are you talking to? Are you answering your own points just after you made them, again?
Will this be in the test, professor? /s Who the question that made you answer that?
Yeah... guess, which societal institution used to be the one who almost exclusively was concerned about philosophy and ethics for the last say... about 4 millenia? Starts with an "r". Historical context is important.
Edit: Sent too soon... still editing... Edit2: Done
Since you're arguing in bad faith and treating me like I'm an asshole, I'm not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults.
The truth is that I had no animosity. I thought we could have an intellectual discussion.
The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That's on you.
Just because someone respectfully disagrees, it doesn't mean it's some emotionally charged interaction. Grow up.
That's like... Your opinion, man.
I felt like you argued in bad faith and explained how I came to that conclusion. Please don't invalidate my perception.
Way to go proving what I figured: That you're doing the equivalent of "liking the sound of your own voice". You're not engaging in conversation, you're trying to lecture me. I don't consider that respectful. When I point that out, you claim that I argue in "bad faith". Seriously?
Then read the arguments I made and adress them. You're smart, you'll figure out which paragraphs contain arguments.
Never claimed that it had a tone of voice. But the way written text is structured can still convey the feeling that you're not being talked with, but rather talked to.
It's less about tone, but "reading between the lines".
I take issue with the word "respectfully". Don't invalidate my perception, please. I also explained why I felt like that.