User in /r/askreddit refers to religion as a misconception, the expected happens. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
33 ups - 10 downs = 23 votes
47 comments submitted at 13:31:47 on Oct 3, 2013 by mask2697
User in /r/askreddit refers to religion as a misconception, the expected happens. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
33 ups - 10 downs = 23 votes
47 comments submitted at 13:31:47 on Oct 3, 2013 by mask2697
I don't normally take the atheist's side in these, but in this case the guy's not being overly smug or anything.
I don't know. Seems a little smug to me, but maybe I'm projecting.
Still, I hate seeing people misuse the word "myth" like that.
>A lot of religions know that it is mythology, but use that mythology as a platform by which to teach.
Religions aren't myths. Religions have myths (and alot of other things).
>myth
>miTH
>noun
>1.
>a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Religion falls neatly into that category in almost all cases.
Religion can be construed much larger than the founding text though. No where in the bible is a fish fry or jumble sale mentioned, but in terms of interactions with their church it is a very major part of it. Further many things in the religion are inspired by the myth, but don't follow it closely. For example, baptism obviously come from the stories around John the Baptist, but even the mainline Christian religions have numerous differences in how they do it, from full immersion to a sprinkle on the head, and to whom they do it (i.e. infant baptism or believer's baptism). Also there are plenty of religious artworks that aren't direct interpretations of the founding text. Things like choral music, or even church buildings, all are part of a religion, but not really mythical in any way.
Religious stories can fall neatly into that category, yes. But religions are more than people telling each other stories. There are rituals, traditions, etc that may draw on myths but are separate activities.
>Seems a little smug to me, but maybe I'm projecting.
The anti-atheism here has come to a point where any remark about religion that isn't explicitly approving is to be downvoted.
As if we weren't swinging from one extreme to the other ...
I don't think we'll ever swing all the way back, but with most atheism discussion (outside the atheism subs) it doesn't seem to matter what you say or how you say it, you're being smug. It's like if someone owned an actual fedora and mentioned it. Sorry bud, you're out of luck.
That's how it works in real life (at least in America) as well. Unless you live in Portland or something if you suggest god might not be real you are considered smug.
Portland has already moved on from anti anti religion to anti anti anti religion.
As always, relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/774/
But... I'm not being superior :(
I know. I was referring to the people going back and forth about fundies and ratheists.
I've always seen it directed at people that dismiss both sides of an argument to make themselves seem smart.
It's kinda funny you said that, because I dropped the comment and left to do stuff. And while I was bored I just thought to myself, "I wonder if that guy I replied with the XKCD comic thought I was talking about him?"
I'll forgive you if you give me cooler flair than MWM.
This is part of what I meant with the other comment I made. I think you are right about the comic's intentions, but it's often intended the way titan413 took it and it's also often taken the way he took it when it's not intended. It's pretty corrupted at this point, and I think that's partly the fault of the comic for not being clear enough.
I like XKCD, but this is the worst XKCD. It's practically a justification to dismiss introducing perspective in favor of insults.
That is not how the comic was intended, but it's how it's used almost every time it's cited on reddit.
I like it a lot and find it very relevant to reddit in general. There's always a new trendy perspective that is better than the last in a never-ending cycle of establishing superiority. I think it's hilarious because accusations of self righteousness fly back and forth when it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how a person compares themselves to others.
Now I've found a way to feel superior to everyone! And the circlejerk rages on.
I always thought of it as a jab at people that don't realize there are annoying extreme viewpoints to any argument.
Like in this context, redditors in the past hating "fundies" to the point where it swung to redditors hating "ratheists" and now back (maybe) again. And the reality of the situation is people can be annoying and act smug no matter what viewpoint they hold.
Oh I totally get that, I think you're right. It's just constantly and improperly used as an argument-ender against anyone who tries to unfavorably compare anything to anything else. In that context, it just degrades arguments, and that's a failure to communicate its point effectively, IMO.
>totally get
screw off
I don't know if it deserves downvotes, but OP is absolutely right, this is the expected happening. Even the atheist probably expected this exact outcome. And doesn't this:
>Didn't say any were wrong or right. And I don't believe my comment to be intolerant. But some people still believe in religions, they are myths, and they are bizarre. I think that answer's OPs question precisely.
seem at least a little smug?
Edit: Obviously, saying a religion is a myth isn't intolerant (although it is an incorrect usage of "myth"), but I've never un-smugly claimed to answer a question precisely.
A little, maybe, but for once I think he was prodded into that by being called "intolerant" for almost no reason.
Religions contain myths; I don't see how that's smug. Maybe calling religion itself a myth is insulting? Or do you mean to say that he's smug for pointing out that people believe those events he labels as myth actually occurred?
Calling religion itself can be interpreted as insulting (if using the popular definition of myth which is "something not true"), or just incorrect if using a scholarly concept of myth (like a folklorist's or religious studies' definition). There are alot of definitions of myth and they all include the word "story." There are hundreds of definitions of religion as a concept, and afaik they state or imply that religions contain practices and beliefs, and not just myths and stories. I would say this is more than just semantics.
But what I called smugness was what I read more in his second comment in the thread which I quoted above. I guess that was subjective.
Edit: To be more clear about what I mean when it comes to myth vs religion, you could collect every version of every ancient greek or roman myth, but if you tried to recreate their religions from that, you would still have enormous gaps because to the ancient greeks and romans, their religion was more than just knowing a collection of stories. It doesn't matter how many times you've heard about Hades' abduction of Persephone, it doesn't teach you what is an appropriate sacrifice to make to cthonic deities (to pick an awful, possibly erroneous example).
The people commenting probably know that religions are more than stories but they do contain stories. They're just improperly wording it by calling religions myths rather than saying that the stories associated with religions are myths. I didn't see anyone attach a specific opinion like "religion is dumb" or anything outwardly negative about religion - just stating the fact that the stories used for religious purposes are mythical.
Me personally, I think religion is extremely useful and can be very good for people and society as a whole. I also think the stories associated with religion are mythical; the majority of the population would disagree in terms of whichever religion they follow.
>the majority of the population would disagree in terms of whichever religion they follow.
Not necessarily, depending on whether they're familiar with non-pejorative use of the word. Unfortunately, our culture's emphasis on literal, factual truth has made any suggestion of symbolism or mythic truth seem like an admission of falsehood or delusion.
I live in the southern US. Don't tell anyone here that those events in the stories didn't actually happen. That and zealotry in the news and politics is where I draw my perspective from. People truly believe that those things occurred and the stories are history to them rather than just virtuous fables.
I also live in the south, and respectfully, I disagree. I think if we could cautiously and non-confrontationaly discuss a few things like the creation of one man and one woman in the Garden of Eden story, we would find that most Christians do believe that many of these stories are in some way truer than true, or true in some way other than being strictly factual. However, yes there are some sects of Christianity that insist that there is no symbolism or myth in scripture. This does not mean that they do not engage in a mythic understanding of these stories as much as it indicates a hostility to outside interpretation of their beliefs. For example: if somehow, it could be proven that a historical Jesus did exist, but he was stoned to death rather than crucified, even fundamentalists who nominally insist on a literal truth to their religion would not feel that this somehow invalidated the religion; the "truth" of the death and resurrection being evaluated separately from the pertinent, factual details.