Are all religious people hypocrites?

[Iggy]

It's not so long since the church approved of slavery.

That doesn't depend on what I believe: it's a straightforward fact.

​They firmly believe something which is obviously false.

 

I wouldn't trust that fact to work on Ewmon. I tried the same thing as far as "burning homosexuals alive" being immoral. His response, which was admirably un-hypocritical, was that they deserve to be burned alive. They sin, and spread disease, and whatever the hell else he said... it was altogether awful.

 

So, I think we have a fairly straight firing line. The religious want to kill and maim (and keep slaves if they're consistent), and they think all of humanity deserves to suffer. The anti-religious think the opposite. Let's just see who wins the moral high ground here.

 

"invariant morality" HA!

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Please try and keep the specific conversation about whether morality is exclusively a religious / Christian invention, etc., to other threads.

 

Incidentally, ewmon, I am planning on responding to some of your comments here.

[ydoaPs]

As far as I can tell, atheists don't have an invariant source of moral code or inevitable and eternal consequences to avoid.

 

Theists don't either.

[Consistency]

Hypocrisy is the result of being brainwashed. The truth is that the majority of people are easy to brainwash, even some scientists, like I always say... follow your own personal values and above all.. think for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ralij]

All people are hypocrits, religion has nothing to do with it except act as another outlet.

[Moontanman]

All people are hypocrits, religion has nothing to do with it except act as another outlet.

 

 

Sigh... sadly i have to agree with that...

[Consistency]

All people are hypocrits, religion has nothing to do with it except act as another outlet.

 

Re-read my post.

 

Religion and other false studies = brainwashed = can't think for yourself = hypocrite.

 

Not brainwashed = think for youself = nonconformist = not a hypocrite.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Consistency

[Villain]

Re-read my post.

 

Religion and other false studies = brainwashed = can't think for yourself = hypocrite.

 

Not brainwashed = think for youself = nonconformist = not a hypocrite

 

This suggests that you have misunderstood the word hypocrite.

[Consistency]

This suggests that you have misunderstood the word hypocrite.

 

You misunderstood. Do I need to type it out for you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28personal_and_cultural%29

[Moontanman]

You misunderstood. Do I need to type it out for you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28personal_and_cultural%29

 

 

No your personal demonstration of it will suffice...

[imatfaal]

from Merriam-Webster

 

 

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

How can someone who no longer has control over her mind and actions, ie who is brainwashed, be accused of either of those actions? If you are brainwashed you have lost personal volition - the mental element of deception is essential for a charge of hypocrisy. Those who are brainwashed have limited personal will and can no longer be considered an autonomous agents capable of forming the double standard necessary to be a hypocrite.

 

Personally, I do not believe brainwashing is as complete or real as it is often portrayed; but it was your claim and you making the equivalence to not being able to think for oneself. Some cults do attempt to mentally coerce their followers and the children of their followers - that renders those who suffer this cruelty more to be pitied than blamed.

 

And those, of religion or not, who espouse one course of action but follow another are tragically common. There are two high profile examples in the UK news at the moment - one is a religious the other a politician; both deny, but both have resigned. The most obvious link is power rather than religion.

 

Whilst I am not a believer at all - I do note that it is the quest for dominion over others and the pursuit of money that seems to lie at the bottom of many of these stories of rank hypocrisy - and thus possibly why Christ regularly told his apostles/disciples how simple, unburdened, remote, and frugal their lives should be if they wished to proselytize in his name. If only they had followed this bit of advice rather than the bollocks from the OT

[Consistency]

How can someone who no longer has control over her mind and actions, ie who is brainwashed, be accused of either of those actions? If you are brainwashed you have lost personal volition - the mental element of deception is essential for a charge of hypocrisy. Those who are brainwashed have limited personal will and can no longer be considered an autonomous agents capable of forming the double standard necessary to be a hypocrite.

 

Personally, I do not believe brainwashing is as complete or real as it is often portrayed; but it was your claim and you making the equivalence to not being able to think for oneself. Some cults do attempt to mentally coerce their followers and the children of their followers - that renders those who suffer this cruelty more to be pitied than blamed.

 

A brainwashed person talks about their personal values(which they don't act out) while acting out the cultural values. Hence hypocrisy.

 

There is of course different levels of brainwashing; some more subtle than others.

 

Compulsory education is a type of subtle brainwashing. Should we label it as a cult?

 

I enjoyed the rest of your post btw.

[menageriemanor]

Does no Believer think, "With the appalling realities of suffering in the world, a god obsessed with who loves whom, of who is attracted to whom, of a maximum of 5? 10? % of the human population... This is a god that has the shallow interests and deep compassion of a womens' magazine?

 

If the homosexuality of individuals of SO MANY species is established, and they are supposed to be created without free will, unlike the HUGELY important human species, then IF you buy into this invisable, all knowing, perfect father figure never making mistakes, then the homosexual individuals of all other species MUST be created deliberately and knowingly.

 

So, either that god is clearly making mistakes or can't remember his previous rulings OR making points, that the ghastly judgemental loathing of homosexuals, by the fundamentalists of most/all? religions, is based on the interference of the nastier men who claimed ownership, editing rights or only correct interpretation of those religious texts. Or indeed, that the Bible, etc., and the opinions held, are the creation of men - and unpleasant sex obsessive men, at that.

 

I am continually surprised by the OBSESSION of fundamentalist religionists, with other people's sex lives. I've never met an educated atheist who CARES, if it is consensual and between adults of the same species. It appears from the regular exposure, world wide, of evangelistic preachers in America, that they have FAR kinkier sex lives than any gay men or women I know. I don't know a gay person in a lifetime committed relationship, that has extra sexual partners of the same OR opposite sex, yet ask me the same thing about committed Christians, and even I, with no interest, can reel off a dozen, all from the tv evangelists of America. Then you get into the AVALANCHE of catholic officials, from Cardinals down, in EVERY country, AND understand, these are just those CAUGHT...

 

For God Believer, read Sexual Obsessive, it seems. Not even, necessarily, their own! Who is MORE interested in SOMEONE ELSE'S sex life? Religious middle aged men or fairly vacuous teenage girls?

 

Often, this is an easy target to aim for, when bringing up religious hypocracy.

[Villain]

Does no Believer think, "With the appalling realities of suffering in the world, a god obsessed with who loves whom, of who is attracted to whom, of a maximum of 5? 10? % of the human population... This is a god that has the shallow interests and deep compassion of a womens' magazine?

 

If the homosexuality of individuals of SO MANY species is established, and they are supposed to be created without free will, unlike the HUGELY important human species, then IF you buy into this invisable, all knowing, perfect father figure never making mistakes, then the homosexual individuals of all other species MUST be created deliberately and knowingly.

 

So, either that god is clearly making mistakes or can't remember his previous rulings OR making points, that the ghastly judgemental loathing of homosexuals, by the fundamentalists of most/all? religions, is based on the interference of the nastier men who claimed ownership, editing rights or only correct interpretation of those religious texts. Or indeed, that the Bible, etc., and the opinions held, are the creation of men - and unpleasant sex obsessive men, at that.

 

I am continually surprised by the OBSESSION of fundamentalist religionists, with other people's sex lives. I've never met an educated atheist who CARES, if it is consensual and between adults of the same species. It appears from the regular exposure, world wide, of evangelistic preachers in America, that they have FAR kinkier sex lives than any gay men or women I know. I don't know a gay person in a lifetime committed relationship, that has extra sexual partners of the same OR opposite sex, yet ask me the same thing about committed Christians, and even I, with no interest, can reel off a dozen, all from the tv evangelists of America. Then you get into the AVALANCHE of catholic officials, from Cardinals down, in EVERY country, AND understand, these are just those CAUGHT...

 

For God Believer, read Sexual Obsessive, it seems. Not even, necessarily, their own! Who is MORE interested in SOMEONE ELSE'S sex life? Religious middle aged men or fairly vacuous teenage girls?

 

Often, this is an easy target to aim for, when bringing up religious hypocracy.

 

Now this is an example of hipocrisy, making a statement about sexual obsession in a topic that has nothing to do with sex only goes to show that the poster is themselves sexually obsessed and condemns others for the very actions that they themselves commit.

[imatfaal]

Now this is an example of hipocrisy, making a statement about sexual obsession in a topic that has nothing to do with sex only goes to show that the poster is themselves sexually obsessed and condemns others for the very actions that they themselves commit.

Nonsense. Evidence (or purported evidence depending on perspective) of a body which concentrates on the unimportant sections of their rule book (ie sexual morality of others) and ignores the fundamentals (ie love one another, feed the poor, clothe the naked etc); whilst at the same time saying that their rule book is inherently correct and must be followed is quite germane to a thread on hypocrisy.

 

If I say there are 5 rules which we must all follow, and try and convince you and others of this fact, then I proceed to act upon only rule one which affects you but not me, and ignore rules 2-5 which affect both of us. Do you not understand that this is evidence of hypocrisy?

[menageriemanor]

Homosexuality and what should be done to those who practise it, was brought up on page 1 and has been argued and picked at by others.

 

I picked a very easy point to make and exposed it to rational thought, and you scream I'm obsessed with sex. I'm an old woman and have no interest in sex. Who's doing it, not doing it... I really don't care, as long as it is consensual, between members of a single species - or with inanimate objects, if it keeps people happy and quiet. As long as I'm not in the same room, do your d#mnedest. Go for it. DON'T CARE. NOT interested.

 

Perhaps if religionists stopped reacting to sex as if it is a cross between rabies and crack cocaine and the reality that it is a biological function, FAR more thought about than done, quite often a crashing disappointment or bored chore of religionist housewives.

 

If you actually viewed it in it's perspective, in modern, longterm partnership, human life... You religionists all carry on like it's the most corrupting, degrading act known to humankind. Sad reality is, first experiences between nerdy science geeks in late teens are a fumbling, embarrassing mess. A decade later, it's a learned skill;;, and for most women over 40, altho it's okay, chocolates are far better, and at times, it's a chore to be ticked off, like vacuuming.

 

I pointed out, at the start, there were so MANY more important, horrifyingly vile, unjust and obscene things for a god to rule upon, and act upon. I pointed out the shallowness of even wasting time on it. I'm not obsessed by sex. I find it boring. I don't care. Religionists judge on partners, often on clothes females wear, women's sexual freedom and liberation, and insist it is THEY who are to make standards to inflict on everyone else, and frequently, THEY are the ones to absolutely blow their own rulings into the stratosphere.

 

To me, being interested in a stranger's sex life, unless you are actually hoping they may be a future partner, is just a bit ever so pervy.- and biologically, if I'm being kind, REALLY ODD and inexplicable.

Edited March 1, 2013 by menageriemanor