Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Live and let live
Bunks
Australia Veteran
I've always been of the opinion that if the philosophy or religion one follows makes them happy and makes them a better person then who am I to question the validity of it.
I have a couple of athiest family members who disagree. They consistently rubbish religion (christianity in particular) loudly and proudly in front of other family members who I know are that way inclined.
Why do some people feel the need to do this?
0
Comments
We used to have a dog food here in the States (maybe still do) called Ken-L-Ration. Their musical ad went: "My dog's better than your dog. My dog's better than yours. My dog's better cause he eats Ken-L-Ration. My dogs better than yours."
Same general concept for some people with religion.
That's not to say people shouldn't discuss religions. But just putting one down in...well...unskillful.
What's the problem though? If somebody thinks a religious belief is nonsensical and says so, what's the problem? We wouldn't apply this argument to political belief or anything else really. So why are people so sensitive about religious beliefs? Why should we all have to walk on eggshells?
If somebody puts down Buddhism I don't really care because I know what it is and it's right for me.
I usually follow Disraeli's very clever advice that in social situations one should avoid talking about religion, politics and other issues that might cause disagreement.
But in my case, @Bunks, it's the other way around.
My friends and my mother can't help talking to me about God and Christianity, even though they know the subject does not quite agree with me.
@Bunks
Why do some people feel the need to do this?
Most of us know of that adversarial instinct to define ourselves according to who is in our tribe and who is outside of it.
It is an habituated response that maintains the integrity of our ego's dream.
We** all **either participate in it to some degree or we awaken from that dream.
Well, let me give a couple of examples regarding Mormonism. And I mention this because I grew up in the town of Palmyra, New York, where Joseph Smith founded the Mormon religion.
One day when I was 10, we were visiting Salt Lake City on a western tourism trip. Some Mormon missionaries began following us, proselytizing. My grandmother was polite, but asked them to leave us alone. One made the mistake of asking my grandfather what he knew about Joseph Smith. My grandfather was a pretty good man, but about as non-religious as you can get. He looked the Mormon missionary in the eye and said, "Well, I know he was a horse thief." Now, I'm not aware of any evidence that Joseph Smith was a horse thief, and yet among old-timers in Palmyra, that was once an oft spoken criticism. And what it really is, is religious prejudice.
When I was still working as a principal, one of my secretaries (a born again Christian) learned I was from Palmyra, although she knew I wasn't Mormon. Nevertheless she went on an anti-Mormon rant, and part of it was (and this is a direct quote): "Well, if the Angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith the Golden Plates, let them show us those plates." I said, "Sandie, that's not fair." "Oh yes it is. If the Golden Plates ever existed they could show them to us. It's just a lie." My response: "Okay Sandie. Show me the plates of the Ten Commandments." "That's different." I would suggest that holding one religion up to a far higher standard than one's own religion is another form of religious prejudice.
On the other hand, one day some Mormon missionaries came to my house, and I invited them in. They did their little spiel, and then asked if I had any questions. I had two. First, genetic research has indicated that there is no basis for the Mormon claims that an ancient tribe of Indians recorded Jesus' presence in the western hemisphere after his resurrection. How do the Mormons respond to that scientific evidence? My other question was about Hill Cumorah, the drumlin in my hometown where Joseph Smith was given the plates by the Angel Moroni, and (as I recall) where they were taken back. The story, as I understand it, was that there was a cave in the drumlin and...well, not sure after that. But as a person with a degree in geology, I know drumlins don't have caves...they're just loose gravel. How did they explain that? I didn't argue their points. I asked for clarification of their explanations.
So, is one arguing to put down, or discussing to learn about a POV?
Why learn about POVs? Isn't it usually to work out if there is anything in them that we agree with?
I can't say if it's usually.
I know I am interested in understanding aspects of history.
But is there something bad about seeking out things that might unite us?
Somehow your question reminds me of the response given by the anti-evolution lawyer in "Inherit The Wind": "I do not want to know what I do not want to know." (paraphrase)
Not at all. But if it isn't there, there's not much use in pretending that it is - better to honestly acknowledge the differences.
Okay. I acknowledge the differences between you and me.
A person interested in the Truth maybe?
The problem is often that the 'happy' and 'better' people want everybody else to be similarly happy and better.
However I would suggest in the way you mean it, most religious and philosophical people are at least trying to make better choices in their behaviour . . .
Hazrat Inyat Khan to an atheist:
“I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in, either.”
Confirming bias for or against as @how mentions is tribal reinforcement. In such situations few people have objectivity . . .
Hazrat Inyat Khan to an atheist:
“I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in, either.”
I still think that's a very evasive answer.
So here is some more evasion . . .
http://hazratinayatkhan.org/principal_elements.php
The 'new' atheists come right out and state that religion is a 'disease' and for the sake of the survival of the human species, religion ought to be expunged.
I bought a book about HOW to actively go around and disabuse people of their Christianity. I bought it because the irony was just too rich, I had to read it. After I read it I could kind of see their point.
The writer of this book would have chided you Bunks, and me too, because I'm with you, if they aren't hurting anybody else or themselves, going at a person's religious beliefs is just barbaric and insensitive.
But he made some good points that I can't deny.
ETA link: A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossiam
Atheists are quite puritanical and zealous in their hatred of what is often equally virulent and can be far more dangerous. Personally I would support their efforts just not the methodology. Atheists do not yet offer a developmental framework that mystics and Buddhists have been honing.
In a sense the exoteric religious will have to up their response. At the moment religious efforts and counter measures are not convincing IMHO. However they never were . . . and are usually along the line of Bible, Koran, Sutra, Thor, Richard Dawkins, says: [insert indisputable authority of preference] . . .
Stooopidity?
Naaa. I think many atheists feel set upon and questioned by believers. Also they feel misunderstood. I think they just need to vent the frustration.
I agree @Bunks . I even welcome open discussion about differences or ideas.
The problem is when somebody KNOWS they are right, and they talk at you. These people scare me.
@vinlyn I like your approach, I invite anybody who has a belief to share and comes knocking at my door, to come on in and discuss it. I once had a monk present me with the Bhagavad Gita(spelling?) I still have the book.
it made more sense to me than the Jehovah's Witness watchtower pamphlet.
I want to share what I have learnt through the Dhamma to everybody. I think it's more skillful to be a person somebody comes to and says. "How?" Practice, don't preach!
Not a bad idea when you look at all the trouble religion has caused down the centuries, particularly the Abrahamic varieties.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about questioning others beliefs but openly belittling them.
I reckon that if anyone is pushing religion or atheism, then their people that don't believe it themselves & so it's just "safety in numbers"....Disraeli was right because no one can ever change another person's opinion no matter what they say, that person has to have a realisation moment themselves & change their own opinion.
not 'their' but 'they're'.
it makes a difference. And yes, I am the Forum Grammar Nerd. Fortunately, bless 'em, folks is used to me....
.
THIS ^^^
Yes.
The reason people behave in any way is lack of exposure to a more skilful response. That is why it is quite useful to know when to speak, if at all, what and how to support even the belittlers who are in essence belittled by belittling . . .
Be kind, I feel is good advice. :wave: .
Yeah
. Zealous puritanism is zealous puritanism whether I agree with it or not. Even if I do agree with it in general, it is destructive rather than strengthening. The authorities are barely disguised clowns, and that includes me when I play along.
@SpinyNorman: Like I said, I could see their point. In the US, the political 'right' conservatives openly (and copiously) deny 'global warming'. Who cares if the Earth warms up so that we can grow avocados in Canada? This life isn't the important one. Not only have we politicized evangelical Christianity, we have used it to justify more fracking and clear cutting of forests. And God forbid (no pun intended) we use a stem cell line from an aborted human embryo to cure or make quantum leaps in the quality of life for people with Parkinson's or central nervous system disorders.
I'd sign up to de-convert if it would help us move forward as a species.
Fear.
But for some believers questioning will be perceived as belittling.
I think the best way to handle those who criticize my religious or other beliefs (whether belittling or just questioning) is to say to them that I do not want to talk about my beliefs with them. I am not saying my beliefs are true I am just saying that I don't want to talk about them. Thus if the criticizer continues to criticize me I shut them down again and again just saying "I do not want to talk about that".
I think it becomes apparent quite quickly whether somebody is genuinely interested or just wants to criticise.
@SpinyNorman Even if they are genuinely interested I might not want to talk about my beliefs.
People do have some funny ideas. One of my friends was convinced that I was doing levitation. If only!!
I didn't think you were levitating...just high.
@SpinyNorman go check out Yogic Flying. Might be more your cup of tea than Buddhism.
No, that bouncing around looks quite wierd. I just want to fly like a bird.