Future of religion

[Endem]

Increasing numbers of Polish Catholics are submitting documents of apostasy, leaving the church officially.

If you are not aware, to officially cease to be a Catholic, you have to submit a form to the church. The number of such forms submitted this year in Poland is six times higher than last year.

Well, the Church has been screwing us over and producing scandal after scandal for the last couple of decades since communism ended, so, the actual number of apostates is probably much higher as many people cannot leave due to social pressure or being unaware you need to file such papers.

[Immortan Khan]

I meant hopefully they come around to seeing that they are wrong about abortion and return to regular attendance.

That the church admits to being wrong about abortion?

Only in the sense that they oppose even medically necessary ones. Other than that though they aren't wrong.

It is one of the richest organizations on the planet and its wealth is arguably impossible to calculate.

Have you visited the fucking Vatican? They hoard wealth like nobody's business.

Okay, but that doesn't really change the fact that they do more for the global poor more than most anyone else. The RCC runs many thousands of hospitals and clinics, homes for the elderly and disabled and a bunch of other stuff to the tune of something like $30,000,000,000 annually. This just feels more like an attempt to imply that the church is always bad and can never do anything good, which is ridiculous and more fit for r/atheism than anywhere else. I'm not even a Christian but c'mon this is just silly lol.

Yes. And most of its wealth is caught up in the monetary value of its properties and artwork. Given their properties are used generally for church related purposes, kind of weird to expect them to sell them.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Okay, but that doesn't really change the fact that they do more for the global poor more than most anyone else. The RCC runs many thousands of hospitals and clinics, homes for the elderly and disabled and a bunch of other stuff to the tune of something like $30,000,000,000 annually. This just feels more like an attempt to imply that the church is always bad and can never do anything good, which is ridiculous and more fit for r/atheism than anywhere else. I'm not even a Christian but c'mon this is just silly lol.

Imagine if the Vatican wasn’t an independent theocracy and one could levy property tax on boondoggles like that.

Christian “charity” is morally at par with fascist soup kitchens; a transparent bid to buy goodwill for their reactionary beliefs.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Any institution containing Pope Francis that somehow also correlates with votes for Donald Trump is doomed to eventually collapse.

My suggestion is to speed it up and get it over with, so that fewer people die waiting on embryonic stem cell cures in the meantime.

. . .

I wish I knew how.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Other than that though they aren't wrong.

If they spoke for "God" they wouldn't get ANY of it wrong.

If the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God (which is ridiculous, but whatever) then it's inexcusable for anyone supposedly qualified to interpret it to have that glaring a blind spot.

Them being wrong about matters of life and death should be one hell of a red flag that the whole thing is garbage. Religion is the right-wing equivalent of leftists who continue to take pollsters seriously, with the only difference being that I don't know if the 2016 election could have been saved by people doubting the pollsters.

[Dakini]

That the church admits to being wrong about abortion?

Only in the sense that they oppose even medically necessary ones. Other than that though they aren't wrong.

Only if you hate women and don't consider us people.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Only in the sense that they oppose even medically necessary ones. Other than that though they aren't wrong.

Only if you hate women and don't consider us people.

I'm all for abortion rights, but when you consider how many abortion-criminalizer public officials couldn't have possibly gotten elected without the votes of women I seriously doubt that many women could both hate and dehumanize themselves.

[Isles of Eamhna]

I seriously doubt that many women could both hate and dehumanize themselves.

religion is a hell of a drug m8

[Dakini]

Only if you hate women and don't consider us people.

I'm all for abortion rights, but when you consider how many abortion-criminalizer public officials couldn't have possibly gotten elected without the votes of women I seriously doubt that many women could both hate and dehumanize themselves.

There are a lot of women who are misogynists out there. Especially women who are super big fans of religious texts that go on about how women are basically the cause of all evil in the world.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I'm all for abortion rights, but when you consider how many abortion-criminalizer public officials couldn't have possibly gotten elected without the votes of women I seriously doubt that many women could both hate and dehumanize themselves.

There are a lot of women who are misogynists out there. Especially women who are super big fans of religious texts that go on about how women are basically the cause of all evil in the world.

"Misogynistic" is subjective. "Hate" and "dehumanize" are a bit more precise. And just because there are verses making women out to be temptresses doesn't mean some of the people reading can't take it as a compliment, like Americans did with the character Vixen from Squirrel And Hedgehog, which would negate the "hate" part. Remember "SlutWalk"?

[Kowani]

Focusing on Christianity in the US...the Mainline Protestant tradition is almost certainly doomed in a few (give it 3 generations, I'd say) to exist as a powerful and active cultural force. Evangelicalism'll stabilize its decline (you could argue that it's currently done so but I say we need a few more years of data to solidify that opinion). Even the black churches (which have historically been rocks of american christianity) will go through some degree of decline, but I personally expect their trendline to look more like evangelicalism than mainline protestantism.
Hispanic Catholicism is actually one of the most resilient denominations in the country but it is obviously capped by the linguistic determinations and cultural identity of Latino Americans and their assimilation into "white/american" culture over time so its direction will be hard to predict, just because of how tied up it is with immigration.

and of course, obligatory nod-The non-theists (not atheists, not agnostics, but people who identify as "nothing in particular") will see their growth slow until they slurp up all the deconverts from mainline protestantism (which is statistically what happens, these people do not go on to the more extreme churches) and their children.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Focusing on Christianity in the US...the Mainline Protestant tradition is almost certainly doomed in a few (give it 3 generations, I'd say) to exist as a powerful and active cultural force. Evangelicalism'll stabilize its decline (you could argue that it's currently done so but I say we need a few more years of data to solidify that opinion). Even the black churches (which have historically been rocks of american christianity) will go through some degree of decline, but I personally expect their trendline to look more like evangelicalism than mainline protestantism.
Hispanic Catholicism is actually one of the most resilient denominations in the country but it is obviously capped by the linguistic determinations and cultural identity of Latino Americans and their assimilation into "white/american" culture over time so its direction will be hard to predict, just because of how tied up it is with immigration.

and of course, obligatory nod-The non-theists (not atheists, not agnostics, but people who identify as "nothing in particular") will see their growth slow until they slurp up all the deconverts from mainline protestantism (which is statistically what happens, these people do not go on to the more extreme churches) and their children.

It's such a pitiful half-measure, though. How does seeing the contradictions in the Bible itself not undermine Christianity as a whole? How does knowing the most mainstream religion was garbage not undermine religion as a general concept?

[Great Algerstonia]

Okay, but that doesn't really change the fact that they do more for the global poor more than most anyone else. The RCC runs many thousands of hospitals and clinics, homes for the elderly and disabled and a bunch of other stuff to the tune of something like $30,000,000,000 annually. This just feels more like an attempt to imply that the church is always bad and can never do anything good, which is ridiculous and more fit for r/atheism than anywhere else. I'm not even a Christian but c'mon this is just silly lol.

Imagine if the Vatican wasn’t an independent theocracy and one could levy property tax on boondoggles like that.

Christian “charity” is morally at par with fascist soup kitchens; a transparent bid to buy goodwill for their reactionary beliefs.

No. Christians host charity events because they are strong believers in the values of charity and helping those who need it. In Christian values, Charity is the unconditional love between humans and a signal of love between man and God.

[Great Algerstonia]

I meant hopefully they come around to seeing that they are wrong about abortion and return to regular attendance.

That the church admits to being wrong about abortion? I don't think that's likely. The Catholic Church is pretty stuck in their ways, especially when it comes to controlling women, hating the LGBTQ+ community, hiding child molesters and hoarding insane amounts of riches while many of their followers live in poverty.

Pro-life isn't pro-control, it's pro-life. According to you, 45% of women believe in having themselves be "controlled". 54% of all American Christians believe in LGBT acceptance with both younger and older Christians being more accepting of them. Most churches are not accepting of abusers-- abusers can have faith in God, but they will be pariahs in the congregation setting.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Imagine if the Vatican wasn’t an independent theocracy and one could levy property tax on boondoggles like that.

Christian “charity” is morally at par with fascist soup kitchens; a transparent bid to buy goodwill for their reactionary beliefs.

No. Christians host charity events because they are strong believers in the values of charity and helping those who need it. In Christian values, Charity is the unconditional love between humans and a signal of love between man and God.

In theory, maybe. In practice Christians known for their "charity" wind up making statements like these.

Christianity is garbage. Throw it away instead of letting it rot in front of you.

Pro-life isn't pro-control, it's pro-life.

It's neither, actually. "Life" is an incredibly vague term that makes no distinction between a sentient third-trimester fetus who's probably only being aborted out of medical necessity and a first-trimester insentient fetus who is not meaningfully distinct from an unfertilized egg cell in any meaningful way. There is no reason to lend more significance to fertilization than to the other chemical changes more relevant to actual sentience.

I am a little skeptical of some of the conclusions some on the left have jumped to about abortion-criminalizers' motives, but at the very least they're playing right into the hands of corporate interests who want poor people to be desperate enough to settle for whatever awful dead-end job will pay for the child's upbringing.

According to you, 45% of women believe in having themselves be "controlled". 54% of all American Christians believe in LGBT acceptance with both younger and older Christians being more accepting of them.

And Christianity was wrong about that as well, if not from the Bible then from the fact that most of the people interpreting it were interpreting it wrong. Why the hell aren't we throwing out all these churches who clearly don't speak for God if they got that wrong?

Most churches are not accepting of abusers-- abusers can have faith in God, but they will be pariahs in the congregation setting.

And yet, the church more easily gets away with shuffling abusers around to save face than other companies would.

[Catarapania]

It's neither, actually. "Life" is an incredibly vague term that makes no distinction between a sentient third-trimester fetus who's probably only being aborted out of medical necessity and a first-trimester insentient fetus who is not meaningfully distinct from an unfertilized egg cell in any meaningful way. There is no reason to lend more significance to fertilization than to the other chemical changes more relevant to actual sentience.

Actually, there is.

Looking at the way we treat pigs, sentience on its own isn't particularly morally relevant. There is a massive difference between the way that we treat humans and the way that we treat animals. And to the extent that we can assign a rational (rather than instinctual) reason to this, it is because only humans display the kind and degree of moral reasoning necessary to play a role in society. So, it is the capacity for moral reason that gives human life its value, not sentience.

Now, it should be pretty obvious that there are two ways to have a capacity for moral reason. One way is by having the capacity to exercise moral reason. The other way is by having the capacity to acquire moral reason. Now, it should be obvious that an infant does not have the capacity to exercise moral reason. And yet, we view crimes against infants as being more depraved than crimes against adults. So clearly, it is the capacity to acquire moral reason that gives human life its value.

Now, needless to say, the fetus has the capacity to acquire moral reason, regardless of trimester. Thus, the life of the fetus has the same intrinsic value as that of a newborn infant.
To make this easier, I'll phrase it in syllogistic format.

1. If a being has the capacity for moral reason, then it has the right to life (from the way we treat humans vs animals).
2. It is the capacity to acquire moral reason that confers the right to life (from the way we treat infants).
3. Therefore, if a being has the capacity to acquire moral reason, then it has the right to life (from 1 and 2).
4. The fetus has the capacity to acquire moral reason from conception onward (from the facts of embryology).
5. Therefore, the fetus has the right to life from conception onward (from 3 and 4).

So, you need to do one of the following things:
Dispute that my premises follow from the evidence I've offered.
Dispute that 3 follows from 1 and 2.
Dispute that 5 follows from 3 and 4.
Assent to the conclusion.

Those are, quite literally, your only options when confronted with a deductive argument.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

No. Christians host charity events because they are strong believers in the values of charity and helping those who need it. In Christian values, Charity is the unconditional love between humans and a signal of love between man and God.

Fascists, too, really do believe in a strong national community that sticks together. Still doesn’t make their soup kitchens anything other than an obviously self-serving measure aimed at the destruction of values I care about. Just like Christian “charity”.

I am unsure if religion is on the decline or in a resurgence. There’s fairly convincing evidence for both. But I would certainly prefer it if the future contains fewer moralising busybodies preaching “charity” and “unconditional love” while consistently voting against policies aimed at poverty alleviation and campaigning in favour of making it more difficult for people with unconventional lifestyles to get on with life.

The track record is very, very clear. Devout Christians accept the advances of modernity with great reluctance and twenty years late. I believe in the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, and so I tend to be opposed to cultural movements that stand against social change, such as traditional religion.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

So, it is the capacity for moral reason that gives human life its value, not sentience.

It's both. It's always both. And at LEAST both; there may be more you haven't accounted for.

For instance, a third factor; having something to live for; would also explain the difference between how we treat humans and how we treat animals. A creature who would otherwise die in the bloodbath that is nature has less to live for than we do. Does an unwanted child have as much to live for as one who the mother wanted? Does a child who might have been born with complications of Zika virus if they weren't aborted have as much to live for as one who wouldn't?

Theoretically, an unfertilized egg cell has "capacity for moral reason" if fertilized, just as a fertilized zygote has "capacity for moral reason" if brought to term. There is absolutely nothing that makes fertilization more meaningful a chemical change than the rest along the way.

In vitro fertilization throws away excess embryos that could become fetuses if implanted. Fewer people feel obliged to protect them. Denialism that circumstances in which one cannot afford children exist; and/or incredulity that some women genuinely don't want kids yet even if they can afford them; surely have to be a factor here, if only subconsciously.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

It really doesn't matter whether that issue is "inherent" to Christianity or not. What matters is that the EFFECT of Christianity were votes in favour of criminalizing abortion, and therefore, if you believe Christianity was wrong about something it treats as a matter of life and death, then there's more poor judgment where that came from and it needs to be cut off at the source, rather than expecting religion to have been right about something for once in its miserable existence.

Throw religion away like the garbage it is. Nothing less will do. People waiting on cures from stem cell research can't afford to wait on an institution that shifted the goalposts on abortion to come around on that one. Also, even when they do come around on stem cell research, you never know what else they'll be wrong about.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

My conceptualization is slightly different. I view it as a balance of rights: the right to bodily autonomy (and as a part of that, the right to be free from harm) vs the right to life. The first right, in this situation, overrides the latter. I think it is very reasonable to say that if somehow, another human shoved themselves into my body and refused to leave for nine months, I would be justified in employing deadly force to remove them. Of course, it is also worth considering the right to life as a spectrum, that an adult possesses more of than a fetus.

This makes the most sense to me. If say instead of pregnancy happening in utero, the fertilized egg magically appeared in an incubator somewhere at the instant of conception, I think most people would agree abortion would not be moral, since the conflict with the right to bodily autonomy is gone, and there is no extra burden on the woman at all.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Since the topic of religion and abortion rights came up, I might as well comment on it.

Some people who know me might find this surprising, but I actually have no strong opinions on the matter. I’ve been on the Internet for a few years and have heard a variety of arguments from both camps, but frankly none of them are particularly convincing. I lean pro-choice mostly because the people I agree with on other issues, issues that I have firmer opinions on, tend to lean pro-choice.

To me, the issue boils down to this question: what counts as a person? If a fetus is a person, then abortion is callous murder plain and simple. If it is not, then abortion is no more objectionable than clipping one’s fingernails. And that definition of personhood thing is a really, really sticky issue that I haven’t yet been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

To the best of my knowledge the fundamentalist Christian position is that personhood begins at conception, but it’s not something I know in any great detail. I’d be very pleased if someone more versed in Christian theology than I am (UMN, you on this thread yet?) is willing to enlighten me on what the current Christian consensus on the definition of personhood is, what theological/scriptural justifications exist for that position, and whether that varies significantly between the various flavours of Christianity.

My conceptualization is slightly different. I view it as a balance of rights: the right to bodily autonomy (and as a part of that, the right to be free from harm) vs the right to life. The first right, in this situation, overrides the latter. I think it is very reasonable to say that if somehow, another human shoved themselves into my body and refused to leave for nine months, I would be justified in employing deadly force to remove them. Of course, it is also worth considering the right to life as a spectrum, that an adult possesses more of than a fetus.

This makes the most sense to me. If say instead of pregnancy happening in utero, the fertilized egg magically appeared in an incubator somewhere at the instant of conception, I think most people would agree abortion would not be moral, since the conflict with the right to bodily autonomy is gone, and there is no extra burden on the woman at all.

Nonsense. In vitro fertilization gets even fewer objections than abortion even though it involves throwing away fertilized eggs.

I'd be wary of this kind of bodily autonomy absolutism, especially when the fetus didn't intend to need the mother to survive. Intent isn't everything, but it's relevant; a person who killed by accident would be punished less severely than one who did on purpose, all else held constant. And as well, legitimizing it is what made alcohol consumption while pregnant unprosecutable; if the mother has the right to harm the fetus even while it is a person, by what standard can we prosecute drinking while pregnant?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

The intricate complexity of an internally consistent ideology is inherently interesting, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with any of it.

That I oppose Christianity is not sufficient reason for me to stop learning about it.

---

-snip-

...and you have driven right into the heart of one of the central contradictions behind modern secular humanism. :p

It is a central premise in liberalism that all interests are equal. It is morally wrong for me to exploit you for my own advantage, because your happiness is no less ethically significant as my own. This is the basis on which things like universal suffrage and free market capitalism sits.

That premise is pretty explicitly incompatible with the idea that life exists on a spectrum, and yet empirically life very much does exist on a spectrum. Most liberals (and here I use ‘liberal’ in the broad sense of that term) will vehemently argue that torturing a dog ought to be made illegal, and yet most liberals feel perfectly comfortable buying and selling them like they’re some kind of property; in short, the current liberal majority opinion is that dogs ought to enjoy some but not all of the rights and privileges a human citizen enjoys. How do you reconcile that with the premise that all interests are equal? What’s the rational and ethical basis behind the entrenched anthropocentric bias of modern secular humanism?

The usual response to this is delve into scientific measurements of intelligence and sentience, but if you start going down that road then you reach some really skeevy conclusions with regards the inevitable reality that even fully healthy homo sapience are not, in fact, born equal in any measurable, empirical quality you care to name.

It’s contradictions like these that remind me that my idea of ethics and morality are built on a basis every bit as immaterial and subjective as the Christians’ belief in their magical sky father.

The more years I put between myself and the exuberant liberal (this time in the narrow American sense of that word) that I was as a teenager, the more I realise that the only ideological stance that is really compatible with empirical reality is to reject ethics entirely and be a nihilist, but that is a conclusion that I really don’t want to accept.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

That I oppose Christianity is not sufficient reason for me to stop learning about it.

Of course. But that also doesn't mean you need to believe whoever assumes the label on what it is. Its holy book is too internally contradictory to define the faith. All that leaves us to go on is to define it through its effects. Comparing more-religious districts to less-religious ones, it's not looking good.

That premise is pretty explicitly incompatible with the idea that life exists on a spectrum, and yet empirically life very much does exist on a spectrum. Most liberals (and here I use ‘liberal’ in the broad sense of that term) will vehemently argue that torturing a dog ought to be made illegal, and yet most liberals feel perfectly comfortable buying and selling them like they’re some kind of property

Are they? The phrase "adopt don't shop" is pretty popular. You don't need a majority of liberals to keep dog purchasing legal, just a majority of voters. And even then, however many of those were liberals might only support it as a pragmatic alternative to shutting the practice down with no telling what puppy mills will do to the resulting puppies...

[Kowani]

Focusing on Christianity in the US...the Mainline Protestant tradition is almost certainly doomed in a few (give it 3 generations, I'd say) to exist as a powerful and active cultural force. Evangelicalism'll stabilize its decline (you could argue that it's currently done so but I say we need a few more years of data to solidify that opinion). Even the black churches (which have historically been rocks of american christianity) will go through some degree of decline, but I personally expect their trendline to look more like evangelicalism than mainline protestantism.
Hispanic Catholicism is actually one of the most resilient denominations in the country but it is obviously capped by the linguistic determinations and cultural identity of Latino Americans and their assimilation into "white/american" culture over time so its direction will be hard to predict, just because of how tied up it is with immigration.

and of course, obligatory nod-The non-theists (not atheists, not agnostics, but people who identify as "nothing in particular") will see their growth slow until they slurp up all the deconverts from mainline protestantism (which is statistically what happens, these people do not go on to the more extreme churches) and their children.

It's such a pitiful half-measure, though. How does seeing the contradictions in the Bible itself not undermine Christianity as a whole?

you mean besides the fact that most christians don't consider them contradictions?

How does knowing the most mainstream religion was garbage not undermine religion as a general concept?

that someone else got it wrong does not really have any bearing on other attempts at the same