How Religion Poisons Everything is "slanted" in a way to be sure, but I actually agree with the arguments presented in the book. What do I stand to gain from studying other religions closely?
No, I don't think you do.
> The problem is that, I truly don't believe in gods or spirits anymore.
Neither do I. I don't see how that's relevant to learning the subject matter that you're claiming to learn. You don't read a book about Java and say that you now understand Haskell. You don't read a book about real-time embedded systems and come away with an understanding of CSS. You don't read a book by Dawkins and claim to have increased your understanding of Sikhism.
> What do I stand to gain from studying other religions closely?
I don't know. What do you want to gain? Why are you studying religion at all, if you have no intention of studying religion?
If you want to study atheism, that's fine. Study atheism. But unless you think that atheism is a kind of religion (which, last I checked, it is not), then you are not studying religion.
I am not however "learning atheism" as others have decided to claim in this thread. I stopped believing in god years ago, at that point by definition I was an atheist.
I am interested in the origins of religion, the scientific reasons that it exists, and the negative impact it has on people.
You are misunderstanding his point because it infringes upon how you self-identify. Perspective is weird like that sometimes.
That is a very weak argument. One cannot learn about religion because all you have to do is believe.. and since I don't believe, I can't learn it?
Edit: so there is no proof or evidence needed for religion – you just have to believe. Would you like to buy this rock i have? it keeps tigers away...
According to him, if a Christian believes in God, and then reads about Christianity to learn about Christianity, said Christian is not a Christian because they're "learning about Christianity". The sheer quantity of stupid required to believe this has disinterested me in continuing any conversation.
The idea that all religion requires uncritical belief in gods and spirits is itself a false belief.
What you stand to gain is to learn ideas about the experience of being human and the nature of the psyche. You do not have to start believing that mystical beings are real in order to benefit from the metaphor.
In my opinion religion exists for both good and evil. It helps certain humans who are unable to cope with the reality of permanent death and loss. It helps people who have become unfocused or destitute to dedicate their lives to something they feel is larger than their own issues.
The evil it serves is obvious. People are robbed of time, money, creativity and hope. Wars are started over it and scientific progress is halted due to it.
Not all religions / religious practices / beliefs are good or evil of course. That would be too broad a statement, but even some seemingly harmless religions such as buddhism lead to violence and oppression.
I personally stand to gain nothing from committing to a religion or conforming to a belief system, but there are others who need to be told what to do by men who claim a higher authority. Far be it for me to try and discredit their belief system, but I do believe that the world would be better off without religion – I just don't think the current populace is ready for that change.
There is nothing at all obvious about the claim that this is an evil caused by religion, rather than a problem with consolidated power.
And I agree, this applies to governments and corporations as well. Pretty much anything that exploits an ideal.
(edited this thought a bit)
The only proof I need is the proof of my own life experiences and the lives I've seen destroyed religion.
See my other comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7912955
And then take a look at these reddit communities:
http://www.reddit.com/r/exjw http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon http://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim http://www.reddit.com/r/moonies http://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai
As I stated above, I recently read How Religion Poisons Everything as well. No idea if you've read this book yourself, but it has some very compelling arguments as to the evil nature contained within religion.
Putting faith and believing in the creative works of human beings, using those beliefs to start wars, shun homosexuals, commit acts of horror and atrocity.
And this doesn't just come from "large hierarchies". Have you considered the religious suicide cults of the world? Even on a small scale, group think through the template of religion can be very deadly.
So basically you are a fundamentalist who is not interested in evidence.
The leaders of the institutions are the beneficiaries of controlling the "channel" to communing with Existence or "God".
Now that we have the internet & relative democratization of information, it is more obvious that we can easily live a spiritual life without institutions or having to follow a prescribed path. We can (and most benefit from) follow our own individual path, uncontrolled by others.
I was raised a Jew, but now most resonant with Jesus. The Old Testament God is a bitchy megalomanic. Jesus was a human being and I'd argue a Humanist searching for a new theological basis.
The Quakers, for example hold that 'there is that of god in everyone'
Many forms of tantric Hinduism hold that the ultimate state of being is realizing one's unity with god.
The Sufi's (and some parts of non fundamentalist Islam) claim that one's experience of god is personal and cannot come through an intermediary.
What these ideas have in common is that god is not placed outside the human, but is an inner experience of the human, or a stage of development that can be reached.
What could be more humanist than the idea that humans are or can be in direct contact with the ultimate reality?
I believe there is a difference in the aspects of religion I am interested in from what you are describing. I simply am not interested in making a study of the worlds various minor religions, and I know a great deal about the major ones already. I am more interested in the psychological damage that is done to people by fundamentalist religion and the negative impact it has on their lives.
I'm not sure why you are pushing other Eastern religions though – I'm aware of many of these teachings, it's just not my primary focus.
As for personal beliefs and what not – I don't care to learn how "god is in me" or "around me". The esoteric nature of religion is bothersome as are the delusional lies of the people who founded them.
All that groks is god.
Edit: I don't believe for one second that morality springs from religion. We have morality in spite of religion.
I personally have no use for this in my current course. I am interested in the harmful aspects of religion.
People thought you were learning about religion.
Those people would have understood your point if you had said that you are learning about atheism.
Anti-religionists do not believe in god, and wish to attack ideas connected with religion whether they have anything to do with believing in god or not. Anti-religionists are therefore willing to dismiss ideas simply because of who presents them rather than on their merits, and are thus subject to a pervasive ad-hominem bias.
1. 'baggage' is not a synonym for 'rights' (legal? social?) 2. While an Atheist is necessarily a non-believer, a non-believer is not necessarily an Atheist.
Furthermore, you tell people you're an Atheist specifically because it conveys a lot with a little. Some of what it conveys is definitely not secular humanism, if that's how you prefer being viewed, you should start with that.
Not only is that not an offensive observation, it should be common sense.