Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[Ten oz]

In simplest terms Science is about observation. One can be talented at observation yet still believe in the unobservable. The mind isn't hampered by competing feelings. One can both love and hate something at the same time.

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, joigus said:

Mmm. I don't think faith is a good benchmark of anything. It's too vague a concept.

I didn't say faith was the benchmark. You use "degrees of certainty", and the folks I know who claim to be the most religious all believe in their god using faith. It's supposed to represent 100% certainty that the Christian god of the Bible exists, no matter what anyone or anything else says. 

13 hours ago, joigus said:

How many among the believers are really 100% certain about anything concerning their faith? I'm convinced that if an experiment were possible to set up measuring the degree of certainty that people personally obtain from their religion, it would show very poor levels in general.

In the US, a great many profess enough faith to say they're absolutely certain the god of the Bible exists. The details may vary, and some claims aren't as deeply held as others, but the idea of believing "with all your heart" that there is a god is common in the States. I would think that at least would hold true even for the CoE. When you add Jesus into the mix, you lose some folks in the US, but others are just as 100% certain that Jesus is watching them to see if they have enough faith in him to get into heaven.

13 hours ago, joigus said:

A declaration of faith is just a declaration of faith. It's  not faith.

This doesn't seem wrong to you? Faith is usually defined as accepting a truth or proposition that has no evidence to support it. 

I acknowledge a difference between having faith in something (the old car will get me through another winter), and having religious faith in something you believe will ensure an eternal afterlife. Perhaps that's where we aren't agreeing?

 

[joigus]

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I didn't say faith was the benchmark. [...]

I see.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

This doesn't seem wrong to you? Faith is usually defined as accepting a truth or proposition that has no evidence to support it. 

Of course it does. Terribly wrong. The point I was trying to make is that the darkest aspect of faith is possibly that so many people declare themselves believers just for fear of being rejected by their particular social group, their family, and closest friends. That's why I think it's so important that closet atheists come out. And that as much people as possible be helped to take this bold step. And that atheists raise awareness about this situation, that avenues for researching this phenomenon be promoted, etc.

We simply cannot be certain of what it means when people say they are believers. That's what's most terrifying.

We may think it's faith, a matter of convincing them with arguments. But maybe we're getting it all wrong. Maybe it's a much more worrying psychological phenomenon that we're up against. How many are there whose belief is declared only on the grounds of social fear? That's the big question.

I think understanding that millions of people are hostages rather than acting out of convictions is very important.

I also think a very serious question that atheists must ask themselves is "what can we do to help those people?"

Trying to connect with what @CharonY said on Thursday:

On 10/1/2020 at 7:07 PM, CharonY said:

A part of the issue  is that folks thinking that they are in the right tend to make intellectual shortcuts. In the early 2000s I was somewhat interested in various atheist movements, in part because I was worried about rising anti-intellectualism and creationism. But apparently once enough folks gather things go quickly to a self-congratulating group of folks who cannot stop emphasizing how rational and therefore superior they are (without actually putting in the work).  There were plenty of folks, including academics who did a great job in outreach and educating. But some of their followers were sketchy and did not put in the intellectual work before succumbing to insufferable smugness (the result being attitudes that are way closer to religious organizations than folks would admit) .  

If we atheists want to have a good reason to form common-interest groups, and rather than wasting time in trying to convince hard-core believers, why not rise to a higher moral ground and address the ones who need us most? Those would be the ones who don't believe, but are afraid to say so.

 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

also think a very serious question that atheists must ask themselves is "what can we do to help those people?"

It wasn't that long ago that Religious people were asking themselves that same question regarding non-believers.
And they sent out Missionaries to convert them.
Is that what you had in mind ?

[Ken Fabian]

Lots of subjects of scientific inquiry won't conflict with a lot of versions of religious faith. A sense of wonder that has religious aspect has been a significant motivation for scientific inquiry, often without leading to false conclusions despite the overlap. But there are those who's religious beliefs lead them to attempt to disprove the science that appears to conflict with their faith, sometimes honestly applying scientific methodology but often not. Those may well put their conclusion first and will dismiss the validity of science outright should that conflict look unresolvable. It should not be necessary to know what the author of scientific papers has for personal beliefs in order to judge the validity of what they publish.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Ken Fabian

[joigus]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

It wasn't that long ago that Religious people were asking themselves that same question regarding non-believers.
And they sent out Missionaries to convert them.
Is that what you had in mind ?

No. For starters, I had nothing specific in mind... 🏸

What I'm saying is very different. It's about offering advice to people who want to get out.

Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse. (IMO.)

[MigL]

If Religion is what makes you feel good about yourself, should we question that, or consider it psychological abuse ?

How is it different from a person who feels they are one gender trapped inside the opposite gender ?
The scientific markers and evidence are there that you are one particular gender, yet that person 'feels' better about themself as the opposite gender.
And, as a society, we've decided that that's OK, and beneficial to express and act ( sex reassignment surgery ) on those feelings.

Why is Religion then, with all scientific evidence against it also, psychological abuse that people need 'help' and 'advice' with ?

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse. (IMO.)

This one caught my attention. Can you please expand on this?

[joigus]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If Religion is what makes you feel good about yourself, [...]

Religion is not "what makes you feel good about yourself." I don't remember a single instance in my life when the religious principles that they foisted upon me made me feel the least good about myself. Quite the contrary. In the Christian religion in particular, it's quite ironic: God made the universe with you in mind, but you are constantly reminded that you are worthless.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

How is it different from a person who feels they are one gender trapped inside the opposite gender ?

This case is completely different. Sex and sexual inclinations are not taught. Religion is.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Why is Religion then, with all scientific evidence against it also, psychological abuse that people need 'help' and 'advice' with ?

If you go back to what I said, it's really "people who want to get out of it need help and advice with...", rather than what you seem to imply.

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This one caught my attention. Can you please expand on this?

Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is.

All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year.

As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is.

All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year.

As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

Not all that different from Business, Politics or Medicine. If you just pull out the worst examples you can find "psychological abuse" just about anywhere.

What I remember of 12 years of Catholic school was church once a week, religion class, being taught to be respectful, participating in charitable works, lots of family activities, parents involved with their child's education, sports where everyone could participate regardless of ability, a tendency for there to be beer at just about any school event, and hundreds of other fond memories.

I don't think I'd classify the actions of my parents and teachers when it came to religion as "psychological abuse". More like "loving care".

 

[Area54]

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is.

All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year.

As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

The above is in defence of your statement, "Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse."

I don't see even a smidgeon of evidence or argument to justify the the most in your statement.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think I'd classify the actions of my parents and teachers when it came to religion as "psychological abuse". More like "loving care".

Likewise. I acquired many of my moral values from my religious upbringing. I have discarded the theistic belief, but still find reflection in a quite church, reading a Bible passage, or listening to the Hallelujah Chorus evoke positive feelings that are completely untouched by any taint of psychological abuse. I recgonise that not all others are so fortunate. Joigus seems to wish to use a "one size fits all" version of religion and chooses the most damaging of possible images.

[joigus]

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not all that different from Business, Politics or Medicine. If you just pull out the worst examples you can find "psychological abuse" just about anywhere.

No possible comparison with business, medicine or politics, although there are bad apples in every quarter, and some systems of power and influence are rotten to the core. Every faith-based religion does set about to possess your mind from the very beginning of your life. There can be no other reason why children are not given an option. And children are not given such an option, you will agree, I'm sure. It's not like you turn 15 and they tell you: "Would you like to join the faith of our ancestors? You are only too obviously not free to make your choice. There is no choice. Nobody enjoys such a luxury within their family religion.

Parents aren't fully aware of what they're doing, @zapatos. I know. They do what they think is best for their kids, of course. Mine did too. They think it's the only option. Why? Because nobody let them choose when they were children either.

37 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I don't see even a smidgeon of evidence or argument to justify the the most in your statement.

I used a superlative, and you're damping it with a counter-acting superlative. I said most religions are like that. Maybe I was too sweeping with my statement. I should have said faith-based religions. But then you've said you don't see a smidgeon of evidence for it. Really? Not a smidgeon? How about hundreds of millions of children being brain-washed and kept in ignorance, and not being allowed to chose?

Is history not an evidence? Is the present geo-social-and-political situation not evidence enough? Is the fact that only in countries where social movements and critical thinking haven't still gathered enough momentum the only ones that remain as theocracies? Where a chiefly religious law-and-order system can have your hands cut for stealing, have you hanged or imprisoned for expressing your thoughts, or have a woman stoned to death for being raped?

It's very nice and solacing the scene that you've depicted with the choir and the church. I can sympathize with it to an extent. Similar images remind me of my parents, happy days of my life long past. But I don't forget for a moment when I was 15 and declared at home that I was not to attend mass any more, and the kind of menacing messages I received, camouflaged as sheer disbelief, from some members of my family. I can't forget how I was insulted for doubting the real presence of Christ in the sacramental bread when I was about 13 by a priest who happened to be my Religion teacher.

I also like beautiful and quiet churches, Bach religious cantatas, etc. But I can equally appreciate and be led to the same levels of reflection by the contemplation of Islamic gardens, Buddhist temples and Jewish chants, or the poetry in the Bible. They're all beautiful and inspiring, but that has nothing to do with ethics and freedom. They were meant to inspire and elevate people's minds when they were written, built or composed, and so they still are, even centuries after we have rid ourselves of the tragic context in which they appeared --although not totally.

Religion gives you a cultural background, be it a song or a funny hat. I'm not against that. Everybody can wear the hat that they please for all I care.

[MigL]

That list you presented, Joigus, along with many other reasons you left out, are why you ( and many of us also ) have no need for Religion, and see it as something that has caused more harm than good. And it is easy for us to be so rational when our life isn't falling apart
But what about the parents with a sick child, who is going to die from cancer ?
If religion ( and 'false' hope ) gives them reason to keep going and not lose their minds, who are we to take that comfort away.

 That is one example of many I could give you.
If people 'believe' there is a higher purpose, even one they are not aware of, they are more inclined to keep trying in the face of adversity.
Hope, even false hope, inspires and drives people.

For us, we realize it's just a 'crutch' to lean on, but none of us know if we'll need one also when we're in their shoes.
( and I hope you never have to find out )

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

No possible comparison with business, medicine or politics,

Well, not if you choose to ignore the comparisons.

"...psychologists ran a secret experiment in the 1960s and 1970s in which they separated twins and triplets from each other and adopted them out as singlets. The experiment, said to have been partly funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, came to light when three identical triplet brothers accidentally found each other in 1980. They had no idea they had siblings."

"Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, the Japanese Imperial Army conducted biological warfare and medical testing on civilians, mostly in China."

"In 1939, speech pathologists at the University of Iowa set out to prove their theory that stuttering was a learned behavior caused by a child's anxiety about speaking. Unfortunately, the way they chose to go about this was to try to induce stuttering in orphans by telling them they were doomed to start stuttering in the future."

"Between 1946 and 1948, Reverby found, the U.S. and Guatemalan governments co-sponsored a study involving the deliberate infection of Guatemalan prisoners and mental asylum patients with syphilis."

"The most famous lapse in medical ethics in the United States lasted for 40 years. In 1932, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Public Health Service launched a study on the health effects of untreated syphilis. Unfortunately for the unwitting participants, this study involved, well, not treating syphilis."

"In 1971, Philip Zimbardo, now professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University, set out to test the "nature of human nature," to answer questions such as "What happens when you put good people in evil situations... Turns out, according to a report on Medium, a news publication, in June 2018, the guards didn't become aggressive on their own — Zimbardo encouraged the abusive behavior"

https://www.livescience.com/13002-7-absolutely-evil-medical-experiments-tuskegee-syphilis.html

In insane asylums you had forced isolations, forced medical procedures including lobotomies, forced imprisonment, and torture.

"Mass starvation killed more than three million people in Stalin-era Ukraine in the 1930s and more than 18 million in China during Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s and early 1960s... Famine is a very specific political product of the way in which societies are run, wars are fought, governments are managed. The single overwhelming element in  three-quarters of the famines and three-quarters of the famine deaths—is political agency."

 https://now.tufts.edu/articles/mass-starvation-political-weapon

Who judges the behavior of doctors? Other doctors. 

Who judged Trump when he was accused of crimes? His politician cohorts.

Do I really need to recap a list of atrocities business have inflicted on employees, customers, and the environment?

I could come up with hundreds of examples with a simple Google search.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by zapatos

[noquacks]

On 10/1/2020 at 4:05 AM, Mnemonic said:

According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels.

Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff? As far as I am concerned, you should not be called a scientist or be allowed anywhere near any scientific endeavour if you believe in fictitious myths.

Am I being too aggressive in my attitude? Probably, however science and the scientific approach to research application is a serious technical field that should not be sullied by ridiculous fairy tales.

 

>Please move to the Religion section..

 

On 10/1/2020 at 4:05 AM, Mnemonic said:

According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels.

Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff? As far as I am concerned, you should not be called a scientist or be allowed anywhere near any Re

 

>Please move to the Religion section..

To reply to the original question , and just in my opinion, yes, one can be a scientist and still believe in Religion (one of the 3 major religions), but one may not have much of a reputation, especially if your field is in Bio. Assuming also that believing in a religion, by default, one must believe that there is a God, and your choices are Allah, or Jehovah (Jehovah is for both Christians and Jews). Which one is the true God, no one knows. Let alone the minor religions, which may include a few hundred different Gods. 

By "believing in religion", you make your own bed- you believe in a God. Make that claim, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it, and to prove it to young tender children to whom this malarkey is taught, not to be questioned by them.  There is no credible proof of any God. I used to believe- I bowed. knelt, prayed with dutiful obedience, with servitude. For 50 years. Got tired of it eventually. I read one too many books, people. 

 

[zapatos]

39 minutes ago, noquacks said:

To reply to the original question , and just in my opinion, yes, one can be a scientist and still believe in Religion (one of the 3 major religions), but one may not have much of a reputation, especially if your field is in Bio.

Do scientists normally put their religious beliefs on their CV? Or are their asked their beliefs once they publish? Does Darwin have a poor reputation due to his beliefs?

42 minutes ago, noquacks said:

By "believing in religion", you make your own bed- you believe in a God. Make that claim, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it, and to prove it to young tender children to whom this malarkey is taught, not to be questioned by them.

So if I tell you I believe in God I am obligated to prove his existence to you and all the cute children? Give me a break. My beliefs are my business. I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you or anyone else.

[Trurl]

What if religion and science did not contradict each other but supported each other.

 

Say: Jesus walked on water. Not possible he would sink. But scientifically the area of his sandals displaced the water below him straight down until the water displaced below his feet equals his weight?

 

From your perspective you see religion as wrong, but you forget you are believing that science explains everything. You forget you are believing as much in science as someone is in Jesus.

 

Michio Kanu says both sides are wrong in that they can’t prove anything.

 

So so we argue this instead of working on meaningful science.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Say: Jesus walked on water. Not possible he would sink. But scientifically the area of his sandals displaced the water below him straight down until the water displaced below his feet equals his weight?

That would mean he was wearing kayaks on his feet, not sandals. 
 

22 minutes ago, Trurl said:

From your perspective you see religion as wrong, but you forget you are believing that science explains everything. You forget you are believing as much in science as someone is in Jesus.

I see religion not as wrong, but as misguided. There are obvious social benefits and a sense of belonging, community, and connection with something larger than ourselves, but religion itself is not needed for any of that. We can experience all of those same things without dividing ourselves into further tribes or accepting millennia year old myths as valid explanations for what occurs in our universe. 

Also, nobody thinks science explains everything. Science is a method of removing human bias from our conclusions. It’s always provisional and always changing, but also the single best option available to us. Try not to strawman it. It weakens your already weak position. 

26 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Michio Kanu says both sides are wrong in that they can’t prove anything.

Proof is for math, not science. He has a point. 

[jajrussel]

So far I have come away from this conversation thinking that if religionist are not allowed to preach then atheist definitely should not be allowed to preach.

[joigus]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

For us, we realize it's just a 'crutch' to lean on, but none of us know if we'll need one also when we're in their shoes.
( and I hope you never have to find out )

If I were asked to invent a narrative to bring consolation to dying people, I'm certain I would come up with a better story than the possibility that they will go to a place of eternal suffering if everything is not in order in their past life. I did find out, AAMOF: I've seen someone very close to me die in fear because of religion, so I do know the effect on the mind when you're about to die and you're a Catholic. Thank science for morphine, because that's what brought her peace, not religion. The fear in her eyes because she thought it was a punishment from heaven is something I won't forget for as long as I live.

@jajrussel Religious people preach, not atheists. Atheists argue --or they should. Atheists call on theists to prove their point, and theists always fail. There is a whole mind, intention, and tradition of difference.

@Trurl As to Michio Kaku, well if he said that, he's wrong about it: I don't have a god, not because I can prove it doesn't exist. I don't have a teapot orbiting around the Sun either --Russell. The onus is on the people who say something supernatural is our maker and has a plan for us. I'm sorry. We're a grown up species, whatever that means. But for a start, it must mean that we're only answerable to ourselves and have to make sense of this newly acquired responsibility. If we mismanage the world, it's our home we will destroy; if we mismanage ourselves, it's we who will suffer the consequences. Welcome to the era of reality-based ethics.

It is for us to develop standards of action so that no misdeeds are done with science, or politics, or medicine, or education as an excuse (trying to answer to @zapatos).

Welcome to the era of grown-up primates!

Edited October 5, 2020 by joigus

[jajrussel]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Religious people preach, not atheists. Atheists argue --or they should. Atheists call on theists to prove their point, and theists always fail. There is a whole mind, intention, and tradition of difference.

You were preaching friend with so much enthusiasm that it presented with every fear you spoke of. I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating. A perfect example of how anti-theism to extreme becomes the example most perfect of religion gone bad. It was scary, because I began to feel the fears you spoke of as if your intent was to teach by example. It was so, so real, and so unexpected.

It is amazing if you cannot see what I speak of in your own arguments, and recognize that you were indeed preaching, using with absolute perfection every skill that most preachers can only imagine they own.

Though I would imagine that in this forum it could be argued that nothing is absolute, and that the closest thing to perfection in science that can be achieved can only be presented to the smallest degree of uncertainty.

Edited October 5, 2020 by jajrussel

[joigus]

24 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

You were preaching friend with so much enthusiasm that it presented with every fear you spoke of. I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating. A perfect example of how anti-theism to extreme becomes the example most perfect of religion gone bad. It was scary, because I began to feel the fears you spoke of as if your intent was to teach by example. It was so, so real, and so unexpected.

If you can not see what I speak of in your own arguments, and recognize that you were indeed preaching, using with absolute perfection every skill that most preachers can only imagine they own.

Though I would imagine that in this forum it could be argued that nothing is absolute, and that the closest thing to perfection in science that can be achieved can only be presented to the smallest degree of uncertainty.

This is just a value judgement.

I could say you're preaching with as much reason as you can say I am. I could say you are unconvincing. I could say you are not rigorous. Those would be value judgments, exactly as yours.

Instead, what I will say is that you're the first person I know that can judge enthusiasm by looking at typed words. Nothing even remotely close to enthusiasm what I feel discussing this topic.

And, please, don't be scared by me saying that certain people should be helped. The possibility or the arguable necessity of helping other people shouldn't scare you, as long as you think rationally. It does not surprise me at all that someone who is particularly lenient with faith-based religion declares fear. Faith-based religion lives on fear.

What's scary is that many atheists have to live in fear or be extremely vulnerable because nobody will help them in their social milieu. That's scary.

Edited October 5, 2020 by joigus

[iNow]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

I've seen someone very close to me die in fear because of religion, so I do know the effect on the mind when you're about to die and you're a Catholic. Thank science for morphine, because that's what brought her peace, not religion. The fear in her eyes because she thought it was a punishment from heaven is something I won't forget for as long as I live.

A similar thought crossed my mind, but mine was focused more on the most religious survivors of the person who died. In my life, it’s extremely common that the death hits the theists hardest and is often for some reason more difficult for them to accept.

One would think that they’d be happy their dad/mom/sibling/cousin/friend is now surfing along the clouds with Jesus, but alas... that’s not what I see. The sadness and hurt and pain seems in my anecdotal experiences to be far greater in the theistic survivors than in the non believing ones. 

45 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating.

That was Spock. 🖖

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, joigus said:

No possible comparison with business, medicine or politics, although there are bad apples in every quarter, and some systems of power and influence are rotten to the core. Every faith-based religion does set about to possess your mind from the very beginning of your life. There can be no other reason why children are not given an option. And children are not given such an option, you will agree, I'm sure. It's not like you turn 15 and they tell you: "Would you like to join the faith of our ancestors? You are only too obviously not free to make your choice. There is no choice. Nobody enjoys such a luxury within their family religion.

Imagine if they're trying to teach the children to be content (live in heaven now, because you can't when you're dead and hell is just your fear of living it); how easy is that to edit/corrupt/misunderstand it to say "If you want to live in heaven, do what I say".

I imagine such a lesson/teacher's fame would spread far and wide, if there's any truth to it; then came science and proved all those stories wrong, without reading between the lines of all that corruption, and think critically about why so many of them seem to be trying to teach the same lesson...

What is heaven if you're not content?

[jajrussel]

19 hours ago, joigus said:

Religion is not "what makes you feel good about yourself." I don't remember a single instance in my life when the religious principles that they foisted upon me made me feel the least good about myself. Quite the contrary. In the Christian religion in particular, it's quite ironic: God made the universe with you in mind, but you are constantly reminded that you are worthless.

This case is completely different. Sex and sexual inclinations are not taught. Religion is.

If you go back to what I said, it's really "people who want to get out of it need help and advice with...", rather than what you seem to imply.

Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is.

All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year.

As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

 

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

This is just a value judgement.

I could say you're preaching with as much reason as you can say I am. I could say you are unconvincing. I could say you are not rigorous. Those would be value judgments, exactly as yours.

Instead, what I will say is that you're the first person I know that can judge enthusiasm by looking at typed words. Nothing even remotely close to enthusiasm what I feel discussing this topic.

And, please, don't be scared by me saying that certain people should be helped. The possibility or the arguable necessity of helping other people shouldn't scare you, as long as you think rationally. It does not surprise me at all that someone who is particularly lenient with faith-based religion declares fear. Faith-based religion lives on fear.

What's scary is that many atheists have to live in fear or be extremely vulnerable because nobody will help them in their social milieu. That's scary.

Every bolded word is of your own doing. I simply read them and assumed that they were bolded with intent. I especially like this part

 

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

And, please, don't be scared by me saying that certain people should be helped.

Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution. From my perspective the sense of having to keep my mouth shut in order to belong is not limited to acceptance within a religious order. I can understand ones heart being filled with anger and hatred, but nothing justifies it being taught, and when you write and embolden specific words it does come across that your intent is to teach those who don't know any better, that they are wrong.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That was Spock. 🖖

You are right initially it was Spock, but I think Data was programmed to personify Spock, and it seems I remember Data with a slight tilt of the head, with an expression of perfect wonder, saying; "fascinating!"

However, I could be wrong. 🤔🧐