[dagw]

I grew up attending church, and on the whole have nothing but good things to say about the whole experience. It gave me both spiritual and moral support when I needed it the most and some of the best people I have ever known, I got to know through church. In fact in ways I mourn the loss of both my faith and my 'church'.

However once I realized that, on a very fundamental level, the core of what they where claiming as true wasn't in fact true, I felt I had no choice to walk away.

[xtracto]

I was "in touch" with religion for 12 years (my parents sent me to a very catholic school even though both are atheists)

My experience was seeing huge amounts of falsehood and hypocrisy as religious people followed and repeated all the rituals of the mass but in the day to day life they just did not care about others and pretty much ignored what their religion taught them.

Thank God after those 12 years I saw everything I needed from religion to get as far away from it as I can.

[LadyCailin]

Is this the religious equivalent of a parent making the kid smoke a carton of cigarettes at once, to turn them off smoking?

[kaptain]

This practice is very common among immigrant/non-Western communities. Oftentimes an educational institution with a religious background offers the highest quality and most prestigious education. In addition, while they might not have the same religious views as the institution, these parents often value the conservative social values that these institutions espouse.

[Timpy]

Where I'm from the catholic churches offer the most prestigious high school educations because their cost is similar to college. They in no way offer a better education, it's just a paywall to keep your kids surrounded by like-minded society.

[MisterBastahrd]

All you have to do to determine whether a school is there for the purposes of educating young people or acting as a buffer against desegregation is to compare the racial composition of the school's football and basketball teams versus the racial composition of the school's general population.

[ineedasername]

Once you get outside of religion classes and church services, Catholic schools tend to be pretty strong on the fundamentals. (Especially Jesuit schools)

When I went for HS, literally the only elective was Art, and for any student in honors courses, it wasn't an elective: you didn't take art because all of your time was in academic courses except for gym once a week. Don't get me wrong, I think electives are valuable and wish I'd had the opportunity: I'm just describing the educational priorities of that type of school. However they also need revenue, so the ones that remain these days are generally a little more friendly in allowing for an individual's interests.

[walshemj]

Or they want a good education I recall my mum saying that if we had stayed where I was born, they would have tried to use my Grandfathers (ex headmaster in another school ) to get me into King Edwards.

That is THE King Edwards Tolkien's Alma mater and is normaly first or second ranked in the UK.

[xtracto]

Haha it could very well have been that! In reality what happened is that we lived in a small town (in Mexico, called Campeche. Late 80s and 90s) and the only quality schooling at that place and time was catholic schools.

[tracedddd]

A carton would be challenging. As a dumb smoking teenager I competed to smoke a whole pack and even then it made me quite nauseous. Took about 5 or 6 cigarettes back to back.

[chmod600]

It depends on the religion. Some are just better at applying religious teachings to lifestyle than others.

In my opinion, Catholicism (for all it's good qualities) is too theoretical and abstract. It's easy to walk out of church without any real takaways that you might apply to your ordinary life.

[aftergibson]

Catholicism is so mired in needless hierarchy and ceremony that it severely inhibits any genuine value it might provide.

It hit home as a teenager during Easter Sunday mass. A priest enters the church, wearing his extra religious garb, a crucifix is carried behind him. The procession take several steps, the worshippers then kneel down and immediately stand back up. Several more steps, then kneeling and standing. Then several more steps, then kneeling and standing.

The third time I stood up I felt like it was outside my body looking at myself. Following the crowd with absolutely no idea why or the meaning behind it. To me, I looked like an idiot. My father was religious his entire life, so afterwards I asked him what the ceremony represented, he had no idea. I went to church less and less after that.

[yepguy]

Unfortunately this is an example of exactly what CederMills said above about failing to properly teach the faith. There is an incredible amount of meaning imbued into every moment of a Catholic mass, and the more of it you understand the more engaging it is to attend and participate.

Earlier this year I attended a 90 minute "walkthrough" of the mass where my priest explained the structure and meaning of a normal everyday mass. At the end of it he had still only scratched the surface, but it was probably more explanation than most (ex-)Catholics ever receive on the topic.

[ebrenes]

Yet such information is incredibly lacking and hard to find. You would think the Vatican and similar would have all this information ready to be digested by people interested in learning, yet it's incredibly hard to find if it's available.

[magicroot75]

Unfortunately we Catholics often try to 'dumb' down our theology and liturgical training to make us seem more approachable like protestant churches. This acheives the opposite of the desired effect: the 'motions" begin to feel pointless. Ritual is important in human life, and symbols are important. But without good education, the symbols and rites are empty. Which it seems like what previous commenter was experiencing at Easter Mass. Granted, it's entirely possible even after learning the meanings that they would all still seem unattractive to commenter. But at least he wouldn't be missing a key element.

[honatommy]

I think religion is primarily cultural and based on traditions. A lot of people do not go for their faith, only cause they are used to it. I wonder how many people stopped going because of the pandemic, then realized they didn't miss it.

[soco]

I feel and felt the same. As many other commenters mentioned, a church must be a few elements in order to be sustainable: a community, a set of beliefs, an organization... and each one of these can be more or less important for the individual, and each on of these can go awry in its own way, often without affecting in the same way the other individuals or the other elements. Thus the discussion becomes even more difficult, when individuals have different experiences on each one of those dimensions. I think calling the debate "comparing apples with oranges" is a massive understatement.

[dagw]

Yea. In some ways I feel slightly uncomfortable speaking up for or defending the church in any general way. For as positive as all my experience have been and all the good I have seen churches do, I have also seen churches (even churches within the same general denomination as the church I attended) completely destroy the lives of people.

[brundolf]

I was in the exact same place as you about 10 years ago.

A key thing for me (I'm still not religious, though I'm religion-adjacent in some ways) was seeing that religion - despite what some would tell you - is at its best when it's not made to be about material truths at all. Its truths, really, are truths about the human condition and how best to live it out.

In this sense, even as someone who doesn't believe in metaphysical spirits, the heart of what they're claiming (if you really dig down deep past many of the surface-level particulars) contains a lot of truth.

[lalaland1125]

The problem is that their teachings also contain a lot of falsehoods. For example, the majority of churches in the US teach that gay sex will cause a person to be tortured for eternity in hell.

That teaching is probably wrong and causes so much damage to so many people.

[geedy]

Religions house many people fearful of what is happening in their lives, the lives of their loved ones. They want explanations for why their expectations and needs are not met. Is it surprising that the powerful would leverage that fear?

Funny how the Hebrew and Greek words for fear have so many other meanings, and yet the church has taught but one for so long when considering the "fear of God".

Seems to contradict "perfect love casts out all fear". Perhaps we would all be better off if we understood "wisdom begins with the awe of God" as the preferred intention.

Because fear based things really suck.

[QuarterReptile]

I admit that I have only participated in a minority of all the churches in the US, but I have never attended any church where your statement would be consistent with doctrine on hell, sin, or homosexuality.

[lalaland1125]

I guess you never attended the Catholic Church? They are quite explicit that gay sex is a grave sin.

[QuarterReptile]

Viewing pornography is equally as likely to be grave sin (I say equally likely because the act is a necessary but not sufficient condition for meeting the definition of mortal sin). I don't mean to downplay that pornography is a negative influence, but you misunderstand mortal sin [1]. Paragraphs 1854 -1864 are particularly relevant.

Mortal/grave sins must be confessed per catholic doctrine, but to say that the mere acts were final is to misunderstand the whole concept of the new covenant.

[1] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s...

[lalaland1125]

> Mortal/grave sins must be confessed per catholic doctrine

Can you truly perform confession for a sin that you are unrepentant about? Like if someone is continuously having gay sex with no regrets or desire to change can they really "confess" about that? Don't you need to at least "admit" that you have sinned in order to confess?

I agree with you that a couple of instances of gay sex doesn't send a person to hell, but a lifestyle where you accept gay sex as a fundamental part of yourself that you don't even try to change does send you hell if I understand the doctrine correctly.

[goldcd]

I'll agree with you that I find their reasoning faulty (I did), but what I dislike about my atheism is that I get lumped in with people who'll tell theists that "they're wrong"

To my mind, most of the planet's population have got to the 'right place' (show love and compassion to those you meet) - and how we all got to this same place is immaterial.

I'm without a doubt an atheist to my core - but doesn't stop me admiring those with faith who use it to lead a good life.

[AgentOrange1234]

As a teenager I was that guy you don’t like. Vocal about my right to not believe, not participate, and not be coerced into religious stuff. Quick to anger by what I saw as violations of church/state separation in my public school. Quick to tell folks how wrong and stupid they were stupid for believing it.

Now it makes me cringe. Like you, still Atheist to the core. But I can really appreciate many of my childhood church’s teachings: God is love, God forgives us, God accepts all of us. I can listen in awe at the sermons of Dr. King Jr. And while I cannot imagine ever believing the supernatural aspects of it all, I will always deeply appreciate and agree with the concern and caring for The Least of These, and our shared responsibility to one another.

[importantbrian]

In the reformed community they have a term for this called being a "cage-stage calvinist." I think it's a useful concept in general. New converts to anything whether it's religion, non-religion, programing paradigms, even superhero fandoms, etc tend to be like that. Especially when those new converts are also young people.

[mensetmanusman]

I was like this, while getting my PhD@MIT went to RCIA@Harvard and changed. One thing that helped was realizing that I believe in free will, which is supernatural (and why many leading atheists reject it). Since belief in free will is an act of faith, it opened my eyes and the world gained color.

[AgentOrange1234]

That’s interesting. Why is free will an act of faith?

(I’m not saying it isn’t. I think all belief in science requires an act of faith, e.g., the universe obeys laws of physics. I just haven’t heard this argued before.)

[mensetmanusman]

If we are only made of the dust around us, then, like a computer, we don’t truly have any control. It’s all just an illusion.

That points to why belief in free will is an act of faith. It is, by definition, not possible to know (because you could always argue your conclusions were not made by your will). It also lies outside the usual ‘god of the gaps’ straw-man debate, because it is more like an endless chasm. :)

[AgentOrange1234]

Got it. I appreciate the explanation.

[thephyber]

> but what I dislike about my atheism is that I get lumped in with people who'll tell theists that "they're wrong"

But every Christian that doesn’t reject the first Commandment implicitly believes the same thing. Some of them picket and scream terrible things at their outgroupers. Most are reasonably neutral and nice.

Giving too much oxygen or mind share to the few vocal outliers only lowers your quality of life. Also, there are enough atheists/agnostics/nones that it’s basically useless to talk about them as a monolithic group.

I am far more concerned about the asymmetry of media/discussion about the obnoxious few with bad ideas over the quiet plurality of pleasant people who don’t force their toxic ideas on others.

[bopbeepboop]

What would that be?

I’ve encountered this claim more often than I’ve encountered actual fundamentalist churches I think are making any sort of strong claim about the world.

So I’m curious to hear what people think is wrong.

[soco]

I mentioned in a parallel comment that I had similar experiences, so I'll jump in until the other commenter does. And to keep spirits cooler, I'll mention my experiences in martial arts. I gained my black belt in Aikido in a wonderful dojo, wonderful teachers, doing many activities together otherwise. I found a few lifetime friends there and love as well, so it was definitely more than "training", it was a real community. Yet I'm not going there anymore for a dozen years already. The entire teaching is based on life energies and ki flows which... just weren't there for me. I was able to progress nicely also without them - faking them to be more honest, I could have been continued growing in the technique, but what was the point continuing something I don't believe in? What was the point in rebelling and showing them how simple sportmanship gets the same peace of mind, does the same precision, builds the same attitude towards "martial" and life in general? People are good if they choose the good, and not everybody needs the supernatural element in order to stay good. And I don't mean a fear of supernatural punishment, but in my Aikido case, a belief in supernatural and benevolent support.

[zests]

I read a book by Eckhart Tolle that gave me two takeaways. The first was that the book was full of nonsense. The second was that it was clear why this nonsense was so effective for people.

What are the downsides to suspending scientific accuracy for the purposes of doing Aikido?

[soco]

I did it for years for myself but at some point when you're supposed to tell your pupil to bend more forward to not obstruct the ki flow, you just can't bring yourself to do it anymore... you can't bear the dissonance anymore.

[klibertp]

The same as with every other sport: injury. You don't want to risk injury by extrapolating a faulty training method from magical thinking. In my experience, the arts and systems geared more towards full-contact spars have way, way less Ki/Qi in them.

[soco]

Hmm I definitely cannot say the training is faulty. You cultivate (in Aikido) exactly the harmony of movements which also without spiritual dimension can be understood and practiced in a very physical, efficient and safe way (as safe as martial arts go, duh). Whereas with krav maga for example there's nothing of this, not because ki is missing (it is) but because it seeks efficiency instead of beauty. Or maybe it's only me not able to find the right balanced system...

[mythrwy]

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

[bopbeepboop]

> The entire teaching is based on life energies and ki flows which... just weren't there for me. I was able to progress nicely also without them - faking them to be more honest, I could have been continued growing in the technique, but what was the point continuing something I don't believe in?

I had a similar experience — in Kung fu and Buddhism.

Beliefs are a model of the world: just because a model isn’t phrased in terms of my core beliefs doesn’t mean it has nothing to teach me.

In the case of Kung fu and Buddhism, I don’t believe I would understand things as well as I do (physics, physiology, neurology) without having taken the time to understand what those other models were trying to express about the world.

To use an analogy: just because I have an irresolvable dependency conflict with a new piece of software doesn’t mean it has nothing to teach me about software and programming.

[soco]

If my message came across as dismissing the ki let me reiterate: I used the model as a tool, it's based on generations of experimenting and I know it works for the practical goals. My issue is that it comes with an esoteric luggage in which I don't believe, yet I'm expected to pass further on. The tool wanted to be also the goal. I assume you can't teach kung fu without some buddhism (I suppose, I'm not a kung fu practitioner) so what is the way forward? Practice krav maga? Practice by yourself on a mountaintop? Neither of those help you much advancing in what you loved... but I'm diverting already too much from the OP. My point was, community is great, but if the spiritual dimension doesn't resonate I can't remain as true member.

[bopbeepboop]

I can’t tell you what to do with your life.

My solution to encountering outdated beliefs with great utility was to try and update them — to retell Kung fu (and Buddhism) in that new world view. Buddhism has a maxim to keep what’s useful and discard the rest.

What does “ki” mean in physics?

I think it’s more than esoteric luggage, but a class of physics equations which are nasty to write down because they’re complex differential equations — and the numerics don’t matter to the practice, just the behavior of the system.

So you give a name to that behavior and model it experimentally, describe it euphemistically, etc.

I get spending the time to learn multiple models and translate between them isn’t everyone’s idea of fun, though. Those people reasonably make different choices than I did.

[8note]

I think the question still stands: what's the point of staying in the versionthat doesn't match your core beliefs vs finding an equivalent that does?

[bopbeepboop]

Can you name an equivalent of Kung fu?

I can’t — so I found it necessary to dig into the old program and port the concepts.

I would argue that more people should do that, even when they don’t immediately understand the old model well enough to port.

Both in software and martial arts.

[tenacious_tuna]

> What would that be?

not OP, but I would presume "the claim" is that (a) there is a God, (b) the church knows which one, and (c) they know what he wants.

For comparison, I (atheist) normally state my position as "There is insufficient evidence to conclude there is a God," so any statement about there being any god, or about what influence they should/do have on our lives I treat as a "claim," which requires supporting evidence.

[sanedigital]

At the risk of being pedantic, I believe that’s more Agnostic than Atheist. Your statement allows for a God to exist, and even infers that you’re willing to believe in them given sufficient evidence.

While the whole atheist-agnostic thing is more of a continuum than not, I think the line is whether you believe there is no God or whether you don’t believe there is one. It might seem pedantic but I do think it’s an important distinction.

[tenacious_tuna]

> I believe that’s more Agnostic than Atheist.

I used to identify as agnostic for a while--the definition I quoted is one adapted from The Atheist Experience podcast. I'd personally describe someone who actively believes there is no god, i.e. possesses enough evidence to claim "There cannot be any god" an "anti-theist", in my personal lexicon.

Generally this is why I bother to give the specific definition by claim--too often I've encountered religious folk who take "atheist" to mean "one who hates god", or "one who actively has evidence against a god", or similar--which may be true for other folk who use the label atheist, but doesn't match my personal definition.

As you said, "the whole atheist-agnostic thing is more of a continuum than not," so I like to give the definition to clear up any mis-assumptions people may make about me for using said label :)

I also agree that the difference does matter--I also think it's more intellectually honest of me to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, however unlikely--even then, there is an important distinction between acknowledging the existence of a god, and choosing to worship said god if they even existed (which is usually the follow-on question from religious folk I talk to.

[dagw]

So I’m curious to hear what people think is wrong.

We know there is a God AND the Bible is some sort of authoritative (most would claim the most authoritative) description of who/how God is and how he wants us to behave towards him.

Often there is also a third correlating claim that our interpretation of the Bible is the most correct interpretation.

[hootbootscoot]

Tell that to all the practitioners of all the other religions... "um sorry folks, you are wrong, we are right"

I have issues with 1) "God told me to tell you" (any human claiming to represent God to their fellow humans. They surely would be devoid of ulterior motives, right?)

2) This collection of hitherto uncompiled writings (including a wholesale incorporation of Judaism) that were uncontestedly written by humans, some of which we know the names of, has now become a singular "book" and it's the world of God, shut up or else, etc.

I smell humans, not divinity.

Oh, and YES you nailed it on the last point. Witness the smug way some Evangelicals dismissively tell a Catholic "but I am CHRISTIAN"...