No, really? Scientists find anti-Christian prejudice in the science world

[Leigha]

Overall Xian’s seem peaceful. Jews took a shit-kicking in 20th century and it doesn’t look like they’ll tolerate another 100 years of that sort of behaviour. OTOH Muslims have car bombs and appear unafraid to use violence.

So if I’m a scientist and I want to take a shot at a religion then Christianity would be my choice. Of course always exceptions happening. How’s Salmon Rushdie doing these days? He’d be my measuring stick..... on the Rushdie Scale I’d say pissing off Islam is not a good choice.

I appreciate your blunt honesty, and that's likely part of it. Historically, Christianity has created much suffering, but again...those were people labeling themselves as Christians, and not necessarily followers of Jesus. Jesus wasn't a warrior, nor a murderer. He upheld the Ten Commandments and told his followers to do the same. He was humble, and his message seemed to illuminate socialist ideals. (although, he wasn't political)

People misuse the label of Christian, for a variety of reasons. It could be solely because their family of origin indoctrinated them into the faith. It could be from social pressure, within their circles of influence. Who knows, really? Jesus said ''you'll know them by their fruit.'' (Matthew 7: 15-20) He often spoke about knowing someone by their actions, not their words, only. Many people will say they're this or that, but what do their actions say?

[C C]

Church groups are retrospectively considered to have been a valuable forerunner tool in promoting imperialism in areas like the New World, and arguably serving in ambassadorial-like or mediating roles at times in various pockets of the old globe. So it could garner special loathing in some circles of the postcolonial grievance crowd as another instrument of past European exploitation. It's not so much that any oppressive customs of another religion get a free pass, but that movements now classed under "Woke", and scientists and cognoscenti commiserating with the latter, could be more patient with them than they are with certain Jesus oriented populations. Those exotic religious cultures are perceived as among the victim elements of past colonialism and even current lingering prejudices.

Overall Xian’s seem peaceful. Jews took a shit-kicking in 20th century and it doesn’t look like they’ll tolerate another 100 years of that sort of behaviour. OTOH Muslims have car bombs and appear unafraid to use violence.

So if I’m a scientist and I want to take a shot at a religion then Christianity would be my choice. Of course always exceptions happening. How’s Salmon Rushdie doing these days? He’d be my measuring stick..... on the Rushdie Scale I’d say pissing off Islam is not a good choice.

Yah, a perceived, recent history of responding violently to criticism, or a state theocracy funding some of that terrorism, does apparently work when it comes to intimidating Hollywood "intellectualism" and righteousness posturing. Rose McGowan: "Please don't kill us."

[Syne]

Christianity is what people feel judges them the most. The problem is that such an aversion to judgement telegraphs their own judgement of themselves. Otherwise, they'd recognize nothing to judge.

So, you're suggesting that it has little to do with their aversion to the Old Testament's origin story which Judaism, Christianity and Islam draw from, and more to do with just a generalized prejudice of Christianity.

Yes, people adverse to "being judged" don't feel like Judaism or Islam really contribute to that in the culture, even though I'm sure Islam is a much harsher judge of people...just not prevalent in the culture.

Try read the immediately preceding post, which asked why Christianity rather than Islam. Now try your question again.

I am not suprised you are unable to answer the question.  It must create some serious cognitive dissonance for you.

Don't be a worthless troll. Or is it that you really don't see your own straw man, or lack of reading comprehension?

[Secular Sanity]

Does the belief in an afterlife benefit society?

Heaven and hell both seem like cruel ideas to me. To even imagine an inaccessible place, good or bad, where a loved one resides without me seems like an unhealthy way to grieve. IMHO, the belief in heaven and hell, good and evil and reward and punishment is divisive and makes us less tolerant and more likely to promote retributory actions.

I loved this article.

The Importance of the Afterlife—Seriously

***Even though we as individuals have diverse values and goals, and even though it is up to each of us to judge what we consider to be a good or worthy life, most of us pursue our goals and seek to realize our values within a framework of belief that assumes an ongoing humanity. Remove that framework of belief, and our confidence in our values and purposes begins to erode.

***There is also a lesson here for those who think that unless there is a personal afterlife, their lives lack any meaning or purpose. What is necessary to underwrite the perceived significance of what we do, it seems, is not a belief in the afterlife but rather a belief that humanity will survive, at least for a good long time.

***Yes, our descendants depend on us to make possible their existence and well-being. But we also depend on them and their existence if we are to lead flourishing lives ourselves. And so, our reasons to overcome the threats to humanity’s survival do not derive solely from our obligations to our descendants. We have another reason to try to ensure a flourishing future for those who come after us: it is simply that, to an extent that we rarely recognize or acknowledge, they already matter so much to us.

_______________________________

[Leigha]

Those are good points, SS but I don't know if all believers get caught up in thoughts of an after life. Obviously, if one's actions are driven solely by rewards and fear of punishments, he/she is missing the joy of everyday faith. I can't speak for all who believe in God, but it would be a tiring charade to follow a deity that you perceive as a petty micro manager.

[C C]

Does the belief in an afterlife benefit society?

Afterlife, transmigration, apotheosis (largely applicable to nobles), return to union with the world-spirit, and whatever else would seemingly have been more vital to the average peasant, serf, slave, nomadic tribal person of the past. Life was hard brutal, restricted by caste systems (and sexism), and abounding with lots of personal loss and woe. Today's advanced technology and a semblance of liberty slash equal rights can yield a kind of earthly heaven for the middle class and even the West's poor are better off (barring homeless conditions). Which is all to say, it's a heckuva lot easier to give up that stuff today than it would have been in prior centuries.

That said, however, there probably wasn't much if any hope and improvement in some of the "on to the next world" beliefs of older European religions. The strange Jewish cult arguably caught fire with the most miserable of the gentiles because it offered ascension in status and quality of life after resurrection/judgement, and likewise easily adapted to a control tool for new flavors of priestly elite (but a restless relationship with aristocracy and rival political interests over time).

Concerning its dark side, the theme of Gehenna sounds much like a fiery execution of both body and soul. But doubtless if there are passages referencing "eternal punishment" and preliminary proceedings of anguish, such could be easily spin-meistered into immortal soul and everlasting torture rather than a second death. Got to keep the mutton showing up and tithing to local spiritual establishments.

[billvon]

Does the belief in an afterlife benefit society?

In some ways - and in some societies - yes.

It can serve as a means of social control.  "Don't do X or you will go to hell."  (X is dependent on the society, and can range from murder to being gay.)

It can mitigate people's fears of death and abandonment.  If you see all your friends after you die - and your dead family member will be waiting for you - it can provide comfort for a society that sees a lot of death.

[Leigha]

I don't disagree with you billvon, but when that is the key motivator behind why people follow a particular religion, it will eventually lead to disaster. Look at parts of the Middle East, for proof of this. They've lost control, trying so hard to keep control.

[billvon]

I don't disagree with you billvon, but when that is the key motivator behind why people follow a particular religion, it will eventually lead to disaster. Look at parts of the Middle East, for proof of this. They've lost control, trying so hard to keep control.

Absolutely.  It merely works for some societies for some time; doesn't mean that it is a good idea long term.

[Leigha]

I don't disagree with you billvon, but when that is the key motivator behind why people follow a particular religion, it will eventually lead to disaster. Look at parts of the Middle East, for proof of this. They've lost control, trying so hard to keep control.

Absolutely.  It merely works for some societies for some time; doesn't mean that it is a good idea long term.

Agree. Have you heard of ''eternal oblivion?'' It is mainly a view of skeptics/atheists that suggest there is simply nothingness upon physical death. 

Maybe following Blase Pascal's advice could be a safer bet? 

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...new-wager/