goldenjackal6 said:Anything, really. But mostly just someone else's business.
Most adults—and yeah, I’m looking at you too—don't actually grasp what morality even is. So why on earth would you expect a kid to have it all figured out? At its core, morality is a pretty straightforward concept, but religious fanatics love to overcomplicate things and twist the logic just to justify their own ridiculous dogmas.
Look, even if you actually had the capacity to interpret biblical allegory properly—instead of clinging to those infantile fantasies about the existence of God—you’re still facing a massive wall: we are talking about values that are two thousand years old. It’s pretty obvious you haven't brushed up on your history, but civilization and our entire value system have shifted so drastically since then that most of those biblical messages are just straight-up irrelevant in the modern world. Then there's the bigger issue: the Bible was written in an era without the internet, back when information sharing was incredibly limited. It was penned by people living in a tiny little corner of the map. It’s like if someone from a small town in rural Alabama wrote a book about local customs and regional traditions, and then tried to force those specific Southern sensibilities on the entire planet as universal truth. That is exactly what the Bible is today: a way for one specific tribe to impose its niche sectarian morals onto a much broader population and demographic. That’s why believers—despite thinking they’re the gold standard for morality—are actually morally autistic in practice. They base their entire ethical framework on the words of a handful of people from a two-thousand-year-old Middle Eastern sect that has zero relevance to the modern age. So, yeah, it’s no wonder people call you narrow-minded. It’s hard not to be stuck in the past when you're trying to cling to Iron Age values in the middle of the Information Age.
It’s an interesting little fantasy, I guess. Especially since thousands of years of actual history have taught us that people driven by religious zealotry are pretty much the absolute worst part of humanity.
Regarding morality, such conclusions can only be drawn on your own behalf, not on behalf of all mankind.
Without religious communities, man would struggle to find a sense of how to distinguish good from evil.
Most faiths preach peace, love, community, and forgiveness.
These are instructions for a happier life. Fantasy develops when a person refuses to engage with the world around them and stays trapped within the bubble of their own ego.
And I ask that people who have never practiced faith do not write about it. Passive observers should stay silent.
Keith Lopez6 said:However, isn't the man who requires faith just to remain moral even more perilous?
Sopdet, a believer has an authority above themselves. Someone watching and recording every thought and action.
An atheist has no one but themselves. They are "responsible" only to themselves.
That is a very dangerous territory for the development of the human spirit and soul.
bluemason3 said:Isn't it pretty obvious? 🤔
There’s no reason to assume religious affiliation is such a decisive factor in someone's antisocial behavior, though context matters. I'd argue the best predictor is actually personality structure (or perhaps a dysfunction therein), which remains fixed in adulthood regardless of whether someone embraces or rejects faith.
Low impulse control—especially when paired with "dark triad" traits, specifically certain types of psychopathy (where impulsivity is a core component)—is likely a much more reliable predictor than whether a person is a believer or not.
In short, at the individual level, the dangerous cocktail is poor emotional regulation combined with a lack of empathy. Both are largely fixed personality traits that are nearly impossible to change once you're an adult, making them independent of religious identity.
When you look at group dynamics, however, things shift slightly, particularly when there's a heavy "us vs. them" divide. In those cases, the exact same person can be viewed as a hero by one side and a villain by the other.
While it isn't the sole driver (existential threats and economic conditions play a major role) and we shouldn't reduce complex behaviors to a single cause, intense ideology usually goes hand-in-hand with deeper social divisions, tighter group cohesion, and the demonization of an "outgroup."
In this sense, a highly ideological person is more dangerous to anyone outside their tight circle because they can be easily swayed toward actions against the opposing community (like the aforementioned attention-seeking attacks). This doesn't have to be religious ideology; it could be political or otherwise, but religion certainly possesses that kind of potential.
These elements can overlap quite clearly. Just as someone prone to pedophilia might seek out professions involving children—whether they're a youth soccer coach or a priest at a Catholic parish—someone with antisocial traits is more likely to gravitate toward social positions or groups that accommodate them. But again, that can happen within a religious organization just as easily as any other institution. We could also speculate about an overrepresentation of certain personality structures within group dynamics, but let's not get carried away.
On a more positive note, I'd suggest that a similarly strong ideology can act as a stabilizing force for individuals with moderate, manageable issues with empathy or impulsivity. It functions as a sort of "exoskeleton," provided they don't turn that strength against an "outgroup" as mentioned earlier.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Have you ever been a believer? Have you actually experienced what you are writing about?
Stories about seeing believers do non-religious things are nothing but old wives' tales.
You can find people like that on both "sides."
I am interested in your personal experience if you have ever been involved in this.
Then we might actually have a constructive conversation. You could present the facts that troubled you or things that didn't make sense to you.
The way you view faith is so lifeless, hollow, and purely factual.
It is all ideology, psychology, and philosophy.
If you lack the personal experience of feeling even a small amount of faith, you will never truly understand it; it will always remain within the realm of fantasy to you.
It is a different matter if you tried it and found it didn't work, or if too much remained unclear to you.
Otherwise, further discussion from my end is pointless. It would just be a waste of your energy and mine, and our precious time.