Unitarian Universalism

[Property Is Robbery]

What do you guys think? I'm especially curious what all you anti-theists think about it. For those of you who don't know the one criteria to being a Unitarian Universalist is a "free and responsible search for truth[/URL] and meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)".

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

[Astarte]

Personally, I like Unitarianism very much.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

If you like the structure of organized religion but dont want to follow any sort of rigid dogma and have pragmatic beliefs then this church is the church for you

[Property Is Robbery]

Does it have a structure similar to an organized religion?

[Noinu]

Okay, I might get a few anti-theists on my head now, but never mind.

It's not impossible to believe in a god and do "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Otherwise it'd be kinda like saying it's impossible to find truths if you have an imaginary friend.

[Property Is Robbery]

Otherwise it'd be kinda like saying it's impossible to find truths if you have an imaginary friend.
Having an imaginary friends would be a great way to find truths about yourself, I would think :p

[Noinu]

Having an imaginary friends would be a great way to find truths about yourself, I would think :p

Right? :D I find it sounds very plausible

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Okay, I might get a few anti-theists on my head now, but never mind.

It's not impossible to believe in a god and do "free and responsible search for truth and meaning". Otherwise it'd be kinda like saying it's impossible to find truths if you have an imaginary friend.

If you claim to believe in God but otherwise act pretty much like a secular humanist, as well as make proper use of the scientific method, you're basically conceding that your God is superfluous to human affairs; He/She/It may as well not exist.

[Queercommie Girl]

No-one really cares what you believe as long as you are politically and ideologically progressive. Hell, you might as well be a Satanist for all I care.

It becomes a problem though if you insist that other people need to believe in your god and try to push it on other people like the evangelicals do.

Just like I don't mind genuinely progressive religious people joining the socialist movement, but it becomes a problem when they insist that the socialist movement needs their religion and their god to succeed. Religious socialism is not necessarily reactionary, but evangelical socialism definitely is.

Objectively though, it's not even that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God, like there is insufficient evidence for the existence of aliens on Earth, but actually the entire concept of "God" is philosophically meaningless. You cannot find another concept which is more useless than "God" is. (Actually "Satan" is also pretty much an useless concept)

[Queercommie Girl]

Bottom line: you are free to believe in "God" if you wish, but there is absolutely no need to do so. So I wonder: what's the point? what benefits can you possibly gain?

[Dimentio]

What do you guys think? I'm especially curious what all you anti-theists think about it. For those of you who don't know the one criteria to being a Unitarian Universalist is a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

The problem is the same as for Robespierre's "Cult of Reason". You cannot create an ecstatic worship of logic and reason, since the very point of ecstacy is to get rid of reason and embrace the deeper parts of the mind.

[Queercommie Girl]

The problem is the same as for Robespierre's "Cult of Reason". You cannot create an ecstatic worship of logic and reason, since the very point of ecstacy is to get rid of reason and embrace the deeper parts of the mind.

You are right, but it's still relative. Unitarian Universalism, like the Baha'i faith, is probably among the most progressive religions out there relatively speaking.

Of course, the correct stance is simply to worship nothing, but if one must worship something, to worship the "cult of reason" is still much better than to worship the God of religious fundamentalism. Robespierre is obviously a much more progressive character relatively speaking than the priests and aristocrats and their "divine rights of kings".

Not all wrong things are equally wrong. Keynesianism is far superior to fascism, and liberation theology is far superior to bible-thumping fundamentalism.

[gorillafuck]

The problem is the same as for Robespierre's "Cult of Reason". You cannot create an ecstatic worship of logic and reason, since the very point of ecstacy is to get rid of reason and embrace the deeper parts of the mind.
I thought Robespierre opposed the Cult Of Reason, in favor of his own Cult Of The Supreme Being?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is the same as for Robespierre's "Cult of Reason". You cannot create an ecstatic worship of logic and reason, since the very point of ecstacy is to get rid of reason and embrace the deeper parts of the mind.

I'm not so sure myself. I think there are different kinds of ecstasy, or at least different ways of looking at it; for example, one of the closest things I've had to a "religious experience" was when I was under the influence of LSD and was struck by what I can only describe as "the sheer joy of knowing"; there was nothing superstitious or supernatural about it, it was the kind of feeling I get when I look up at a clear starry sky and realise that there's an utterly fascinating universe out there and that it is knowable, magnified a hundredfold to the point where I was paralysed with joyous laughter.

I know that feeling was entirely the consequence of chemicals interacting with my brain, but that doesn't diminish the wonder one little bit; in fact, I find it astounding that the blind forces of physics and natural selection can create such a thing completely by circumstance!

Sure, when you're doing the actual grunt-work of scientific investigation it's best to have a clear head, but science uncovers marvels that leave the poky myths of religion and superstition in the dust, and my experiences lead me to believe it can be psychologically healthy to just bathe in the glow of what science has uncovered from time to time.

As Douglas Adams said, "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day".

[Noinu]

If you claim to believe in God but otherwise act pretty much like a secular humanist, as well as make proper use of the scientific method, you're basically conceding that your God is superfluous to human affairs; He/She/It may as well not exist.


If one wants to see it in such narrow terms, yes, that is what I'd be saying.
Of course then again, just because something is useless doesn't mean one cannot enjoy it or even need it.
Like ice cream. Ice cream may as well not exist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If one wants to see it in such narrow terms, yes, that is what I'd be saying.
Of course then again, just because something is useless doesn't mean one cannot enjoy it or even need it.
Like ice cream. Ice cream may as well not exist.

The only reason people think they "need" a god is because the concept is socially respectable, and many people are socialised to believe in deities.

If belief in supernatural entities was as essential to human psychological welfare as luxury foods (like ice cream), then there would be no such things as atheists.

[Noinu]

The only reason people think they "need" a god is because the concept is socially respectable, and many people are socialised to believe in deities.

If belief in supernatural entities was as essential to human psychological welfare as luxury foods (like ice cream), then there would be no such things as atheists.

I am sure you find it extremely plausible to speak for all those who believe in a deity, but I find it rather hilarious to think that there is no other possibility than it being socially respectable.
Not to mention to fact that in some circles, including around here, it's not nearly as respectable (dare I say the opposite of that), so why believe in the first place? Got to be a different reason for it, eh?

I know many an atheist that is far more 'religious' than the people who I know believe in a god. They read their special books, they bash openly those who believe in a god and they are very vocal in trying to make others believe what they believe.

And what about those tiny little tribes in the middle of rainforests? Why do they believe in deities? Never heard of them having a social construct where it was respectable to believe in something that you can't see.

And on a complete off-note, since when is ice cream a luxury food?

[Queercommie Girl]

If one wants to see it in such narrow terms, yes, that is what I'd be saying.
Of course then again, just because something is useless doesn't mean one cannot enjoy it or even need it.
Like ice cream. Ice cream may as well not exist.

Are you saying God is just like ice cream? Now that's the kind of God I like. :lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

And what about those tiny little tribes in the middle of rainforests? Why do they believe in deities? Never heard of them having a social construct where it was respectable to believe in something that you can't see.


From a Marxist point of view, religion in pre-class tribal societies is fundamentally different from religion in class societies. Religions in class societies are reactionary because they essentially serve as tools of ideological oppression by the ruling class. Religions among tribal peoples, on the other hand, are "natural", and do not serve an oppressive role. They merely exist due to the primitive nature of such tribal society's technological level and productivity. They serve to explain natural events where no proto-scientific explanations can be found by such people.

However, tribal religions are never monotheistic in the Abrahamic sense, they are always pagan in nature and polytheistic, usually involving a heavy element of ancestor worship of some kind. Strict monotheism is indeed an artificial invention of class society. As Engels points out: without an unified leader on earth, there can never be an unified leader in heaven. Heaven is a reflection of earth, religion is a reflection of politics and economics. God is a reflection of the supreme king, the high emperor, or the despotic dictator.

See also this thread for more information:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rise-atheism-ancient-t141770/index.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am sure you find it extremely plausible to speak for all those who believe in a deity, but I find it rather hilarious to think that there is no other possibility than it being socially respectable.

It's a reasonable conclusion to make - or are you denying the priviliged place that religion has in almost all societies? Even today?


Not to mention to fact that in some circles, including around here, it's not nearly as respectable (dare I say the opposite of that), so why believe in the first place? Got to be a different reason for it, eh?

The fraction of people who deplore religious belief are most definitely in the minority, so I don't see your point.


I know many an atheist that is far more 'religious' than the people who I know believe in a god. They read their special books, they bash openly those who believe in a god and they are very vocal in trying to make others believe what they believe.

There's much more to religion than having a strong opinion.


And what about those tiny little tribes in the middle of rainforests? Why do they believe in deities? Never heard of them having a social construct where it was respectable to believe in something that you can't see.

Of cours they do, they're just socialised differently to believe different but just as implausible things.


And on a complete off-note, since when is ice cream a luxury food?

A sweet (sometimes sickeningly so) dish that consists mostly of fat and sugar? Seems like a luxury food to me.

[Noinu]

From a Marxist point of view, religion in pre-class tribal societies is fundamentally different from religion in class societies. Religions in class societies are reactionary because they essentially serve as tools of ideological oppression by the ruling class. Religions among tribal peoples, on the other hand, are "natural", and do not serve an oppressive role. They merely exist due to the primitive nature of such tribal society's technological level and productivity. They serve to explain natural events where no proto-scientific explanations can be found by such people.

However, tribal religions are never monotheistic in the Abrahamic sense, they are always pagan in nature and polytheistic, usually involving a heavy element of ancestor worship of some kind. Strict monotheism is indeed an artificial invention of class society. As Engels points out: without an unified leader on earth, there can never be an unified leader in heaven. Heaven is a reflection of earth, religion is a reflection of politics and economics. God is a reflection of the supreme king, the high emperor, or the despotic dictator.

See also this thread for more information:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rise-atheism-ancient-t141770/index.html

You are quite right :)

[Noinu]

It's a reasonable conclusion to make - or are you denying the priviliged place that religion has in almost all societies? Even today?

I am not trying to negate the fact that most major religions are this. I never said that, I am merely venturing into a question of why would it be the only possibility? I mean, one can believe in something that isn't respectable. Just because religion in the sense one usually thinks of it, is that, doesn't mean religion in itself has to be that.



The fraction of people who deplore religious belief are most definitely in the minority, so I don't see your point.


Well actually, that is my point. They belong to the minority. A lot of people here, not all, but a lot, say religion is bad. Evil even. So basically, belonging to the minority of believers, one would be in a rather unrespectable position, no? At least, believing wouldn't be considered respectable.



There's much more to religion than having a strong opinion.

Well actually, a lot of those religious people seem to have little more than a strong opinion....



Of cours they do, they're just socialised differently to believe different but just as implausible things.

I am only making that example because it is still a definition of religion. Religion does not have to mean a monotheistic world religion. It can mean almost any sort of supernatural belief system.



A sweet (sometimes sickeningly so) dish that consists mostly of fat and sugar? Seems like a luxury food to me.

Well actually, that's only the ice cream sold in stores, once you make it yourself, it's less sweet and less fatty and even extremely simple to make with eggs and cream. *shrug* I guess I just find it much too easy to make to think of it as luxury.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not trying to negate the fact that most major religions are this. I never said that, I am merely venturing into a question of why would it be the only possibility? I mean, one can believe in something that isn't respectable. Just because religion in the sense one usually thinks of it, is that, doesn't mean religion in itself has to be that.

It's not necessarily the only possibility, but I was speaking in general terms. The vast majority of people don't believe in God because they've put any thought into it (and even then, thinking can be wrong).


Well actually, that is my point. They belong to the minority. A lot of people here, not all, but a lot, say religion is bad. Evil even. So basically, belonging to the minority of believers, one would be in a rather unrespectable position, no? At least, believing wouldn't be considered respectable.

Believers may be the minority on this site, but they are certainly not the minority in society. Besides, the truth isn't decided by plebiscite.


Well actually, a lot of those religious people seem to have little more than a strong opinion....

Considering your floppy-to-the-point-of-uselessness definition of religion that you seem to be operating under (if atheism is a religion, then so is Marxism and cooking), I'm not sure to whom you are referring here.


I am only making that example because it is still a definition of religion. Religion does not have to mean a monotheistic world religion. It can mean almost any sort of supernatural belief system.

Of which atheism is most certainly not, or hell even a belief system - all that atheism requires is a lack of belief in God.


Well actually, that's only the ice cream sold in stores, once you make it yourself, it's less sweet and less fatty and even extremely simple to make with eggs and cream. *shrug* I guess I just find it much too easy to make to think of it as luxury.

I have more pressing meals to make with eggs than ice cream.

[Noinu]

It's not necessarily the only possibility, but I was speaking in general terms. The vast majority of people don't believe in God because they've put any thought into it (and even then, thinking can be wrong).

Yes. :)


Believers may be the minority on this site, but they are certainly not the minority in society. Besides, the truth isn't decided by plebiscite.

That is true, but societies change. It is possible for these people to one day be the minority in society as well and even to an extent were believing in the entire society would not be respectable. I doubt it would just disappear though.



Considering your floppy-to-the-point-of-uselessness definition of religion that you seem to be operating under (if atheism is a religion, then so is Marxism and cooking), I'm not sure to whom you are referring here.

Of which atheism is most certainly not, or hell even a belief system - all that atheism requires is a lack of belief in God.

And since when is Buddha a god?



I have more pressing meals to make with eggs than ice cream.

Well from that point of you, one could think it as such.


And just to be clear (not trying to sound really *****y though :D) I'm only discussing this, because I find this fascinating. I'm not trying to defend any side and my own beliefs have no place on a forum like this and I hope you will understand that whatever I discuss on the subject of religion, only comes from thinking of other possibilities and not from what I myself believe in. Just so if you're thinking I'm some crazy ass religious nut :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That is true, but societies change. It is possible for these people to one day be the minority in society as well and even to an extent were believing in the entire society would not be respectable. I doubt it would just disappear though.

Religion disappearing would be nice, but I would be happy if most people treated religion the same way they treated "touching wood".


And since when is Buddha a god?

I never said he was. Religious superstition comes in non-theistic form as well.


And just to be clear (not trying to sound really *****y though :D) I'm only discussing this, because I find this fascinating. I'm not trying to defend any side and my own beliefs have no place on a forum like this and I hope you will understand that whatever I discuss on the subject of religion, only comes from thinking of other possibilities and not from what I myself believe in. Just so if you're thinking I'm some crazy ass religious nut :D

It's not just believers who defend religion - it isn't hard to find atheists and agnostics who "believe in belief", i.e. while they may not be believers themselves, they still think that religion is somehow "necessary" for the great unwashed masses who clearly need their security blanket.

[Noinu]

Religion disappearing would be nice, but I would be happy if most people treated religion the same way they treated "touching wood".

Touching wood? Never heard that phrase before, unless you mean actually touching something made out of wood....



I never said he was. Religious superstition comes in non-theistic form as well.

Well then, wouldn't it be completely possible to summise that many an atheist are actually religious?



It's not just believers who defend religion - it isn't hard to find atheists and agnostics who "believe in belief", i.e. while they may not be believers themselves, they still think that religion is somehow "necessary" for the great unwashed masses who clearly need their security blanket.

Well religion definitely isn't needed. Dogmatic weirdos who have nothing better to do with their lives than to try and find reasons why sex would be bad.

Security blankets! Now there's an idea. Why don't adults use them anymore? I mean, they're comfy in bed. Although a plush toy might be easier to deal with; smaller and somewhat prettier.

Anyway, how can religion be seen as a security blanket? I mean most religions give the most depressing view of the world, not to mention of religious life; do this, do that, don't dare do that otherwise you'll burn in hell, and the Catholic idea of purgatory just seems too bothersome to deal with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Touching wood? Never heard that phrase before, unless you mean actually touching something made out of wood....

It's a superstition where I live (UK) - people say "touch wood" to ensure good luck, and usually touch something made of wood while saying that.


Well then, wouldn't it be completely possible to summise that many an atheist are actually religious?

Atheists in the West are typically also philosophical naturalists and/or materialists, which precludes non-theistic religions such as Buddhism.


Well religion definitely isn't needed. Dogmatic weirdos who have nothing better to do with their lives than to try and find reasons why sex would be bad.

Security blankets! Now there's an idea. Why don't adults use them anymore? I mean, they're comfy in bed. Although a plush toy might be easier to deal with; smaller and somewhat prettier.

Anyway, how can religion be seen as a security blanket? I mean most religions give the most depressing view of the world, not to mention of religious life; do this, do that, don't dare do that otherwise you'll burn in hell, and the Catholic idea of purgatory just seems too bothersome to deal with.

Religions claim to offer a definitive path for how one should lead their life. The fact that religious believers gloss over the nasty bits (or actively glorify in them like fundamentalists do) is evidence for the suspension of critical enquiry.

[Noinu]

It's a superstition where I live (UK) - people say "touch wood" to ensure good luck, and usually touch something made of wood while saying that.

Oh yes, here it's to 'knock on wood'. Yeah, alright, it's really the same thing. My mom used to do that, used to drive me crazy with it too.



Atheists in the West are typically also philosophical naturalists and/or materialists, which precludes non-theistic religions such as Buddhism.

I don't know, for me it just seems slightly unnatural to think that all human beings who believe in something are evil. Which sadly is what quite a few of my atheist friends believe. I mean people can just be misguided, no one's inherently evil based on what they believe in, it's like saying no one could ever change their opinions.
Of course this is not to try and generalise this, it's just those are the people I come in contact with regularly, and the 'believers' that I come in contact with are far from any sort of fundamentalism. So that's why this all is so fascinating to me :)



Religions claim to offer a definitive path for how one should lead their life. The fact that religious believers gloss over the nasty bits (or actively glorify in them like fundamentalists do) is evidence for the suspension of critical enquiry.

Ah yes in that sense a security blanket, sure, yes. When it comes to glorifying of the nasty bits, it seems to be more about the people who do it rather than the religion (=the deity) itself. But I do agree with your point.

[Targaryen]

The only reason people think they "need" a god is because the concept is socially respectable, and many people are socialised to believe in deities.
Well where I live even if most people claim to be Christians there are very few who actually go to church or actively follow the Christian faith, and I believe that is the case in the most of the world today. And those people tend not to be viewed favorably by the rest of society, I experienced this on myself as I been in many cases looked down by the society for my religious conviction. What's more funny is that social marginalization is not also the case for atheist as far as I have seen, in fact the atheist I know are favorably looked upon by the society. And probably this is even more the case in the more atheistic countries but even there are religious cults.

Also, how about the small sects and religious cults? They tend to be viewed by the rest of the society as weirdos and surely don't gain any "social respectability" from their beliefs.

As about the Unitarian Universalism I found the idea very interesting.:thumbup1: If I would not be a convinced Orthodox Christian I would consider joining.:)

[Targaryen]

Oh yes, here it's to 'knock on wood'. Yeah, alright, it's really the same thing. My mom used to do that, used to drive me crazy with it too.
There is the same superstition here to.:lol: A while ago when talking to somebody and mentioning the possibility of him having an accident like "what if you get run over by a car" or something like that, he freaked out and didn't let me by until a knocked in a wooden table. He realy did belive thet he would die as soon as he lives the house if I don't do that.:laugh:

Is weird how some superstitions can be find in so many different places on earth.:confused:

[Noinu]

There is the same superstition here to.:lol: A while ago when talking to somebody and mentioning the possibility of him having an accident like "what if you get run over by a car" or something like that, he freaked out and didn't let me by until a knocked in a wooden table. He realy did belive thet he would die as soon as he lives the house if I don't do that.:laugh:

Is weird how some superstitions can be find in so many different places on earth.:confused:

I know, it's so weird. I remember every time I said 'I haven't had influenza in so many years', my mom just HAD to knock on the table. And I didn't even make any premenitions :D I mean, isn't it supposed to be like 'I'm never going to suffocate' and then you have to knock on wood. I though it was a bit ridiculous to knock on wood when you're actually saying something completely factual.
Not that the whole idea of knocking on wood wouldn't be completely unnecessary, but yeah.

It is interesting! I wonder if same sorts of superstitons can be found in cultures very different from Europeans, like somewhere in Central Africa. That would be interesting to research...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh yes, here it's to 'knock on wood'. Yeah, alright, it's really the same thing. My mom used to do that, used to drive me crazy with it too.

My mum's done it, but I don't think she takes it all that seriously.


I don't know, for me it just seems slightly unnatural to think that all human beings who believe in something are evil. Which sadly is what quite a few of my atheist friends believe. I mean people can just be misguided, no one's inherently evil based on what they believe in, it's like saying no one could ever change their opinions.
Of course this is not to try and generalise this, it's just those are the people I come in contact with regularly, and the 'believers' that I come in contact with are far from any sort of fundamentalism. So that's why this all is so fascinating to me :)

Religious belief doesn't make people evil (since people are neither inherently evil or good), but it can make people do evil things, sometimes on a massive scale.


Ah yes in that sense a security blanket, sure, yes. When it comes to glorifying of the nasty bits, it seems to be more about the people who do it rather than the religion (=the deity) itself. But I do agree with your point.

I think the fact that Gods and their believers share the same opinions is highly suspicious.


Well where I live even if most people claim to be Christians there are very few who actually go to church or actively follow the Christian faith, and I believe that is the case in the most of the world today.

I'd be happy to see a worldwide count of attendance of religious services, do you mind furnishing me with it?


And those people tend not to be viewed favorably by the rest of society, I experienced this on myself as I been in many cases looked down by the society for my religious conviction. What's more funny is that social marginalization is not also the case for atheist as far as I have seen, in fact the atheist I know are favorably looked upon by the society.

Then why do 87% of Romanians declare themselves to be Eastern Orthodox Christians? It's not difficult to be an atheist. All you have to do is stop believing in deities.


Also, how about the small sects and religious cults? They tend to be viewed by the rest of the society as weirdos and surely don't gain any "social respectability" from their beliefs.

They have other methods of gaining (and keeping!) followers.


As about the Unitarian Universalism I found the idea very interesting.:thumbup1: If I would not be a convinced Orthodox Christian I would consider joining.:)

Do you go to church, by any chance?

[deLarge]

I've been to service at a Unitarian Universalist church once before. Basically, there was a poetry reading, a piano duet, information on a charity, results of a sect-wide referendum, and a couple badly sung hymns about the universe.

It is more like a social club for progressive-minded people of various faiths than anything.

[Noinu]

My mum's done it, but I don't think she takes it all that seriously.

Lucky you


Religious belief doesn't make people evil (since people are neither inherently evil or good), but it can make people do evil things, sometimes on a massive scale.

Agreed. Of course, this can be said of almost any sort of belief system, whether religious or not.


I think the fact that Gods and their believers share the same opinions is highly suspicious.

Well that would kind of depend on the god, right? If there would be a god that think covering nasty bits up and glorifying things is stupid, then doing that would basically be the fault of only believers?


I'd be happy to see a worldwide count of attendance of religious services, do you mind furnishing me with it?

I know this wasn't actually for me, but I thought I'd try and find some info regarding the church in Finland (and by this I mean the evangelic lutheran one, since it's the main church).
78% of Finns are in the evangelic lutheran church
50% of those who are in the church, believe in God
and from somewhere I read that 1,8% of those who are in the church, actually attend sermons sometimes.

So basically, most are christians only because they were born in it and couldn't bother signing out from church (which is really easy 'cause we have this website where you can do it).



Then why do 87% of Romanians declare themselves to be Eastern Orthodox Christians? It's not difficult to be an atheist. All you have to do is stop believing in deities.

I guess the part about stopping believing is the hard part when you really really believe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Agreed. Of course, this can be said of almost any sort of belief system, whether religious or not.

Religion is particularly pernicious since it requires suspension of critical thought.


Well that would kind of depend on the god, right? If there would be a god that think covering nasty bits up and glorifying things is stupid, then doing that would basically be the fault of only believers?

The problem is that believers often justify nasty acts because it's "God's will". Your typical Unitarian Universalist won't do that, of course, but they are not socially significant, unfortunately.


I know this wasn't actually for me, but I thought I'd try and find some info regarding the church in Finland (and by this I mean the evangelic lutheran one, since it's the main church).
78% of Finns are in the evangelic lutheran church
50% of those who are in the church, believe in God
and from somewhere I read that 1,8% of those who are in the church, actually attend sermons sometimes.

So basically, most are christians only because they were born in it and couldn't bother signing out from church (which is really easy 'cause we have this website where you can do it).

Doesn't Finland collect census data? People might act differently when actively approached.


I guess the part about stopping believing is the hard part when you really really believe.

I guess I was lucky in having parents who were at best indifferent to superstition or at worst thought it a bit silly. For others it may be a big step.

[Noinu]

Religion is particularly pernicious since it requires suspension of critical thought.

Well to be honest, I really don't think capitalists thought things through completely either... so, suspensing critical thought?


The problem is that believers often justify nasty acts because it's "God's will". Your typical Unitarian Universalist won't do that, of course, but they are not socially significant, unfortunately.

Again, agreed.


Doesn't Finland collect census data? People might act differently when actively approached.

Finland does collect census data, extremely well actually, for some reason. But for example when it comes to church going and things like this, it's more left to polls than actual census date collectings (that's not a phrase, I know, but I hope you understood).
You see, census data is collected on how many belong to different churches, sects, whatever, but not if they actually attend.

And what do you mean by actively approached? Approached by whom and in what way?



I guess I was lucky in having parents who were at best indifferent to superstition or at worst thought it a bit silly. For others it may be a big step.

Yeah I had both. Mom was superstitious to a point (in some things extremely and in others not at all), and my dad thinks everything like that is completely idiotic.

[Targaryen]

Religious belief doesn't make people evil (since people are neither inherently evil or good), but it can make people do evil things, sometimes on a massive scale.
The USSR did a lot of nasty thing on a massive scale but this isn't keeping us from being communist because we know that there is far more to the communist ideology then what Stalin did, or any criminal that found communist as a good pretext for his actions.

The same goes for Christianity, you shouldn't judge the christian religion by the actions of the church as long as those actions go against what the christian religion really promote.


Then why do 87% of Romanians declare themselves to be Eastern Orthodox Christians? It's not difficult to be an atheist. All you have to do is stop believing in deities.From declaring that you're a Orthodox Christian and really guiding your life after the Christian teachings is a long road.

It's true is very easy to be an atheist, and even easier to go with the wave and say that you area Christian the same as most people around you while not really caring about how you conduct you're life. But is not easy to truly follow the Christian teachings and guide you're life after them. This is certanly not the way somebody who wants to gain the society approval, or somebody who is afraid to seek the truth and chose a life of mediocrity without asking himself any difficult questions, would chose.

They have other methods of gaining (and keeping!) followers
But you said that the only reason believe in god is because is socially respectable, and I don't see how this apply to this case.
I think that the fact that all religions have so many splits and so many people offering various interpretations is a proof of the fact that those who really believe in a religion or another don't do this because this is what society wants them to do, they are genuinely search for the truth the same as the convinced atheist.

Of course I don't speak of the modern movements like Scientology that are only after the money of their followers, but of sects that split because of different misunderstandings with the church, as I see this as a sign that those people are really asking themselves questions and questioning what they been told.

Do you go to church, by any chance?I used to in the past, and I still do that today from time to time, but I"m currently not very fond on the church, as it doesn't mach the way I see the Christian religion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well to be honest, I really don't think capitalists thought things through completely either... so, suspensing critical thought?

"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason." - Martin Luther

Capitalists may not be rational all the time, but it takes religious superstition to actively reject reason as a philosophical basis.


Finland does collect census data, extremely well actually, for some reason. But for example when it comes to church going and things like this, it's more left to polls than actual census date collectings (that's not a phrase, I know, but I hope you understood).
You see, census data is collected on how many belong to different churches, sects, whatever, but not if they actually attend.

What does that matter? I don't see how it's reasonable to use church attendance as a proxy for the strength of religious belief - there are plenty of reasons aside from weak faith for not attending church.


And what do you mean by actively approached? Approached by whom and in what way?

What I meant is, people might react differently when asked by a census form that's been plopped on their lap what religion they are, as opposed to having to go through the de-churching process.


The USSR did a lot of nasty thing on a massive scale but this isn't keeping us from being communist because we know that there is far more to the communist ideology then what Stalin did, or any criminal that found communist as a good pretext for his actions.

The same goes for Christianity, you shouldn't judge the christian religion by the actions of the church as long as those actions go against what the christian religion really promote.

The difference is, the Christians have had a two millennia headstart to get things right, but they haven't. That's because Christianity (and all other religions for that matter) aren't about achieving any meaningful improvement in this world, for all their guff about charity and forgiveness; that's just fluffy shit that gets trotted out when the religion is weak.

But when religion has meaningful social and political power, watch out! Especially if you're some kind of social minority.


From declaring that you're a Orthodox Christian and really guiding your life after the Christian teachings is a long road.

It's true is very easy to be an atheist, and even easier to go with the wave and say that you area Christian the same as most people around you while not really caring about how you conduct you're life. But is not easy to truly follow the Christian teachings and guide you're life after them. This is certanly not the way somebody who wants to gain the society approval, or somebody who is afraid to seek the truth and chose a life of mediocrity without asking himself any difficult questions, would chose.

It is flat-out impossible to be any kind of "True Christian™", because the Bible is contradictory and there is no universal standard for resolving them. One "True Christian™" is a heretic in the eyes of another "True Christian™".

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the born-again Portestant, a C.S. Lewis-style Anglican and an Eastern Orthodox adherent are all equally devoted to their belief.


But you said that the only reason believe in god is because is socially respectable, and I don't see how this apply to this case.

If you don't think the idea of God is socially respected, try getting charitable status for an organisation that worships the Invisible Pink Unicorn, versus an organisation that worships the Christian God.

It's very easy for cults to ride on the coat-tails of this social regard by claiming not only to worship God, but to do it an exclusive and special way not accessible to the benighted masses. Cults rely on their niche appeal to reel in converts, and then use other methods (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_cults_operate) in an attempt to hold on to them.


I think that the fact that all religions have so many splits and so many people offering various interpretations is a proof of the fact that those who really believe in a religion or another don't do this because this is what society wants them to do, they are genuinely search for the truth the same as the convinced atheist.

They may be sincere, but the approach taken is completely non-conducive to truth-finding. Unlike in science, there are no mechanisms for overcoming bias or misconceptions.


Of course I don't speak of the modern movements like Scientology that are only after the money of their followers, but of sects that split because of different misunderstandings with the church, as I see this as a sign that those people are really asking themselves questions and questioning what they been told.

If they were really doing that on a meaningful level, they would no longer be Christian. What actually happens is a bunch of people decide to believe in God in their way, with their God now oh-so-conveniently liking and disliking the exact same things that they do.


I used to in the past, and I still do that today from time to time, but I"m currently not very fond on the church, as it doesn't mach the way I see the Christian religion.

So it really is all about you.

[Property Is Robbery]

Oh yes, here it's to 'knock on wood'. Yeah, alright, it's really the same thing. My mom used to do that, used to drive me crazy with it too.

That's weird because evidently in Finland, Romania and America it's knock on wood, but in England they touch there wood :p

[Noinu]

What does that matter? I don't see how it's reasonable to use church attendance as a proxy for the strength of religious belief - there are plenty of reasons aside from weak faith for not attending church.

Did I actually say that? I really don't think so.



What I meant is, people might react differently when asked by a census form that's been plopped on their lap what religion they are, as opposed to having to go through the de-churching process.


And I still don't get what you're trying to point out, sorry.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did I actually say that? I really don't think so.

Then why mention it?


And I still don't get what you're trying to point out, sorry.

It's easier to say "I'm an atheist/agnostic" when directly asked on a census form, than it is to actually go out of one's own way to notify the authorities that you no longer want to be on the parish list or whatever you called it.

[Noinu]

Then why mention it?

Because you asked about census data, I just tried to be throrough in my answer. Excuse me for that.



It's easier to say "I'm an atheist/agnostic" when directly asked on a census form, than it is to actually go out of one's own way to notify the authorities that you no longer want to be on the parish list or whatever you called it.

Of course it is. What's your point?

[Dimentio]

The problem with universalism and secularism is that it is impossible to create a sense of reveration for Cosmos without giving it an awareness, since humans are biologically programmed to primarily seek and understand intentions (autistics are an exception).

The religion of the future is destined to sound a lot like this:

VRiZPsVEhis

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If that's the case, then perhaps widespread mild autism will be what it takes for the human species to truly earn the mantle of civilised.