RE: People using religion when it suits them?
July 1, 2014 at 7:46 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2014 at 7:47 pm by ManMachine.)
(July 1, 2014 at 6:02 pm)clergyman Wrote: I've come across this often online. Hypocrites. People who justify their beliefs with something when 95-99% of the time, they don't follow it.
I was reading an article on Yahoo about laser attacks on planes and the demographics of the attackers were young males (specifically teenagers) from 15-24.
I saw in the comments some people saying they should be punished by the law, and one comment was saying 'Spoil the rod, spare the child, spare the rod spoil the child.'
Now I understand sometimes tough punishments are necessary on children, but the fact is, the people making these claims don't really care about religion as much as their need to justify something they see as wrong.
The people who talk about this are almost living their life in a way that is against the Bible. About 70% of Americans claim to be Christians yet 95% have had premarital sex? What sense is that?
It seems that people a fair percentage of Christians are 'Swaying' Christians who don't really live their life for God and instead use religion whenever it suits them. They will be against gays because its a sin, threaten hell for unbelievers people who make them feel bad, advocate for strong punishments for those who make mistakes but continue to sleep with everyone, get wasted, live in ignorance etc
Hypocrisy is not just found in Christianity, it seems that it is a feature of many people's ideologies. I say 'it seems' because everybody is entitled to interpret whatever ideology they like from whatever sources they like. We don't live in totalitarian countries.
You could argue that most atheists you come across don't really understand the ideology they profess to adhere to. There is plenty of scientific theory out there to explain why concepts like 'god' and social constructs like 'religion' persist, and the kinds of evolutionary advantages the cognitive processes that lead to these concepts have afforded humanity - but still you will find people saying that religion is destructive and useless, to say that is a misinformed oversimplification is putting it nicely. I've shown on many occasions that if you challenge the status quo, put new ideas out there, atheists are just as prone to going nuts as any other ideology.
We have to ask ourselves honestly are we looking for reasons to denigrate another person's ideology, and if so, why? I've seen a lot of posts on this forum with sweeping generalisations saying Christians are idiots, which is blatantly not true, some are, sure, but then so are some atheists. Asserting atheistic ideology does not confer intelligence, which a lot of people seem to think it does.
We need to get away from this Christians v Atheists bullshit. It's pointless and destructive. The question we need to be asking is how can we better understand why these ideologies came into existence and why they persist. Dumb ideas do not persist for thousands of years. They have clearly been useful, and we need to understand fully why they have been useful before we can suggest they are no longer useful. To suggest otherwise without due consideration of the theory and then claim scientific method is the best way to understand our world is true hypocrisy.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
