I’ve been thinking about this and this is really the fundamental problem about religion. People can say oh religion atheism it’s both kind of the same, you know ultimately people have things that they want and things that they think are right or wrong, etc etc.
The difference is religion has an intrinsically built-in mandate that you can’t just think that this is right or wrong for you, but right or wrong for everyone. This intrinsically leads to the conclusion that others must be forced to comply with your standards, even if it doesn’t affect you. Religion can never become pacified or progressive enough for this not to be a problem, as it comes from the fact that religion posits an absolute external morality. If you have a religious group and an atheist group, the atheist group could conceivably leave the religious group in peace to do what they want to do forever (although let’s be honest that isn’t very likely either because people are people). But the only way that a religious group could leave some other group whether atheist or not in peace to do what they want forever, would only be if they never realized the mandate that is logically implied by their belief system. Essentially, the most harmless religious group is one that hasn’t thought too hard about it yet. A religious group, by it’s very nature, cannot be content with leaving others alone to live differently from them.
This intrinsically leads to the conclusion that others must be forced to comply with your standards, even if it doesn’t affect you.
I think this is only true for evangelical religions, which I believe there is only one.
Buddhists, for example, don’t clutch their pearls anytime they see someone kill a mosquito. But evangelical Christians do whenever a Muslim does anything horrific like give someone hungry free food.
This sounds like an explanation on why I can’t fully hate on people trying to convert others to their religion.
Because if they truly believe their religion, then they are honestly trying to “save” other peoples’ souls with conversion. They really believe they’re doing a good thing.
I can laugh because it’s a silly notion and the odds of them convincing me of a real life deity is slim. But to them it’s real and altruistic to spend time trying to “save” others.
I don’t sympathize with them, not because of their sincerity, but for their unwillingness to question themselves about how they came to embrace that their instructions are The Truth.
Most won’t have a better reason than “the adults told me when I was a child”, and IMO that isn’t enough reason to impose your beliefs on others when you’ve become an adult yourself.
I’ve been thinking about this and this is really the fundamental problem about religion. People can say oh religion atheism it’s both kind of the same, you know ultimately people have things that they want and things that they think are right or wrong, etc etc.
The difference is religion has an intrinsically built-in mandate that you can’t just think that this is right or wrong for you, but right or wrong for everyone. This intrinsically leads to the conclusion that others must be forced to comply with your standards, even if it doesn’t affect you. Religion can never become pacified or progressive enough for this not to be a problem, as it comes from the fact that religion posits an absolute external morality. If you have a religious group and an atheist group, the atheist group could conceivably leave the religious group in peace to do what they want to do forever (although let’s be honest that isn’t very likely either because people are people). But the only way that a religious group could leave some other group whether atheist or not in peace to do what they want forever, would only be if they never realized the mandate that is logically implied by their belief system. Essentially, the most harmless religious group is one that hasn’t thought too hard about it yet. A religious group, by it’s very nature, cannot be content with leaving others alone to live differently from them.
I think this is only true for evangelical religions, which I believe there is only one.
Buddhists, for example, don’t clutch their pearls anytime they see someone kill a mosquito. But evangelical Christians do whenever a Muslim does anything horrific like give someone hungry free food.
This sounds like an explanation on why I can’t fully hate on people trying to convert others to their religion.
Because if they truly believe their religion, then they are honestly trying to “save” other peoples’ souls with conversion. They really believe they’re doing a good thing.
I can laugh because it’s a silly notion and the odds of them convincing me of a real life deity is slim. But to them it’s real and altruistic to spend time trying to “save” others.
I don’t sympathize with them, not because of their sincerity, but for their unwillingness to question themselves about how they came to embrace that their instructions are The Truth.
Most won’t have a better reason than “the adults told me when I was a child”, and IMO that isn’t enough reason to impose your beliefs on others when you’ve become an adult yourself.