You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ZankerH comments on Stupid Questions March 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Gondolinian 03 March 2015 11:37PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (199)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 04 March 2015 09:59:49AM 1 point [-]

Some religious social functions are denied to people who do not believe, or are unwilling to lie to their loved ones about their disbelief. It's one thing to attend church services, quite another to participate in a baptism wherein you swear to the best of your ability to raise the baptized child in a belief you think is a flat lie.

Some religious social functions may be deemed socially harmful, for instance the inculcation of false material or social beliefs in children. (I don't mean false beliefs of the form "Jesus loves you", but of the form "experiencing lust corrupts your mind", "listening to the Beatles will cause you to join a cult", or "yoga is an occult practice and doing it will cause to become insane".)

In many cases, the institution uses its access to members to advocate specific political and social positions which are opposed to humanist values; thus, the atheist humanist may see the organization as a political opponent.

Comment author: ZankerH 04 March 2015 02:51:20PM *  -1 points [-]

Some religious social functions are denied to people who do not believe, or are unwilling to lie to their loved ones about their disbelief.

The exact same thing could be said about secular-humanist organisations - suggesting that there's nothing inherently wrong about such a standard even from your perspective. Sure, they outwardly profess being much more open and accepting than institutions of traditional organised religion, but the overwhelming majority probably wouldn't accept a creationist baptist or a wahhabi, for good reason - and the same goes for religious institutions. I don't think anyone should be forced to associate with people who openly reject and oppose their world-view, which seems to be what you're proposing.