First, I don’t know where I have to put this kind of question on Lemmy so I’m asking it here. Marx viewed religion as a negative force, often referring to it as the ‘opiate of the masses.’ If someone is religious and also identifies as a Marxist, do you think that’s contradictory, or is it just a matter of mislabeling themselves? Would it be more accurate for them to call themselves a socialist instead of a Marxist?
There is something wrong with religion, it’s a rejection of reality.
Ideally society should be able to act rationally and make evidence based decisions. To reject such basic facets of existence and to substitute them with outlandish stories does not help, it only holds us back.
You should judge these things by their outcomes. If someone is a decent person, because they think it will please their invisible friend in the sky, I’ll take it.
But they only think of themselves as decent. Religious thought stunts one’s ability to make moral decisions in changing circumstances.
Sure, my pa is ‘decent’ and considered very kind by most, but he uses his religion to keep from having to learn to deal with his gay and trans offspring in a humane manner. His religion is explicitly harmful on those subjects even though he is otherwise mild mannered and ‘nice’.
Religion makes followers into lesser, less-flexible versions of themselves. This is not a good outcome.
From my perspective, organized religion predisposes people to being easily brainwashed.
Someone that is a decent person BECAUSE of their invisible friend in the sky will also do and permit evil things if they are convinced that it pleases invisible sky friend.
I’d honestly rather people that “need” religion to “be good” just be bad. Then we can weed them out easier.
Few of us are 100% absurdists, most of us reject reality in some way. Let the religious have their delusion, and you’ll have yours (that decisions should be based on most reliable evidence on what would most advance the utilitarian goal, probably?), and I’ll have mine (the same, except when it might have really interesting consequences).
Depends.
There are phenomena we can’t explain. So there is room in reality for things beyond our understanding, which traditionally are filled with myth and believe. However, I agree given that for basically every claim religion has put forth science has been able to demonstrate non-supernatural causes, it only seems logical to assume that this will still be the case further down the line.
About the things we can’t explain yet, we should be honest and the only moral thing is to say we just don’t know. Lying and pretending otherwise is immoral and wrong.
There is a difference between lying and believing.
We know that plants have evolved along every other living being on this planet. Yet for an ancient farmer sowing their field, asking “who or what sowed everything else around me”, the assumption of some godlike original farmer being is reasonable. So, believe in and of itself is not immoral. Believe contrary to better knowledge is.