Here's Why I Dislike Religion

[Chinaski]

I wouldn't actually consider UU a religion. No set beliefs, no doctrines, no objective standard to be held to... It's like a bunch of de facto atheists got together and said "I really like the Church socials, can we keep having them without the bullshit?"

That's what I thought UU was about as well. By the way, are you a member of Secret Cinema? I know Chinaski is Bukowski reference so there could be multiple Chinaskis on the web but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Secret Cinema? No, it's a Buke' reference.

[Loki_999]

I wouldn't actually consider UU a religion. No set beliefs, no doctrines, no objective standard to be held to... It's like a bunch of de facto atheists got together and said "I really like the Church socials, can we keep having them without the bullshit?"

So if we got some wine and bread on these forums we could also be like the UU?

[statichaos]

To be clear, there are theistic UUs out there. I'm one of them. However, while we freely discuss our beliefs, we require no one else within or without the church to follow us in this. It would be especially ridiculous for me to do so, as I'm of the agnostic theist, "Feel it, sense it, know it in my heart, can't prove it for the life of me." bent. My minister is also a theist, the Religious Education teacher as well. I'm not sure about our assistant minister. She seems largely humanist, but I've never asked.

Unitarianism and Universalism are both firmly grounded within the Western Christian religious tradition, though it is fair to say that our beliefs and structure have evolved significantly within the past couple of hundred years, and even more so since we joined forces. We still maintain a respect and appreciation for what we see as the essential message of the ministry of Jesus, though we also understand that there's a significant amount of cultural baggage that must be taken into consideration when reading the gospels. Also, even those UUs who consider themselves Christian UU tend to reject the concept of the trinity outright. I suppose that they still believe in "Sky Daddy" (as do I, though I obviously see it differently), but without much of the anger and what I see as unhealthy arrogance that characterizes certain fundamentalist and literalist denominations.

[Chinaski]

I still think it's a cop-out.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I wouldn't actually consider UU a religion. No set beliefs, no doctrines, no objective standard to be held to... It's like a bunch of de facto atheists got together and said "I really like the Church socials, can we keep having them without the bullshit?"

So if we got some wine and bread on these forums we could also be like the UU?

We have cheese and bacon. That will have to do.

[statichaos]

I still think it's a cop-out.

Interestingly enough, you share that opinion with fundamentalist Christians.

BTW ,and OT, Bukowski was a huge influence over me many years ago, and I adore much of his writing to this day.

[Chinaski]

I still think it's a cop-out.

Interestingly enough, you share that opinion with fundamentalist Christians.

BTW ,and OT, Bukowski was a huge influence over me many years ago, and I adore much of his writing to this day.

When both extremes of the spectrum agree on something, usually it's because it's true.

Bukowski is influencing me heavily at the moment as well. I'm beginning to take my writing a tad more seriously, and his influence shows.

[statichaos]

When both extremes of the spectrum agree on something, usually it's because it's true.

Since when? To me, it shows that those who are so into their "either/or" fallacies that they are unable to see a "maybe" or some sort of third, fourth, or fifth option are doing what they always do, which is to scorn anything beyond a very narrow view of right and wrong.

And so that I don't get misinterpreted, I'm not accusing you of that. If you were like that, I suspect that this conversation would not be quite as polite.

[Chinaski]

When both extremes of the spectrum agree on something, usually it's because it's true.

Since when? To me, it shows that those who are so into their "either/or" fallacies that they are unable to see a "maybe" or some sort of third, fourth, or fifth option are doing what they always do, which is to scorn anything beyond a very narrow view of right and wrong.

And so that I don't get misinterpreted, I'm not accusing you of that. If you were like that, I suspect that this conversation would not be quite as polite.

Since when is atheism an "either/or" position? In my case, at least, the connotations it has with scientism imply a perennial versatility depending on the re-elaboration of evidence or logical constructs. You might very well be right, and I wrong.

My cop-out perspective is because I don't think UU qualifies as a "real religion" in the first place (and yes, I know, the subject is open to much debate), and UUs seem to be de facto atheists who just don't want to abandon believing for social or superficial reasons.

Hence, I don't include UU in my generalizations when I talk about "religions".

[statichaos]

My cop-out perspective is because I don't think UU qualifies as a "real religion" in the first place (and yes, I know, the subject is open to much debate), and UUs seem to be de facto atheists who just don't want to abandon believing for social or superficial reasons.

Hence, I don't include UU in my generalizations when I talk about "religions".

But I'm not an atheist. My minister isn't an atheist. I suspect that a bit less than half of the congregation that I belong to could be classified in that manner.

Unitarian Universalism is a theistic tradition that opened its doors to the wisdom of non-believers. Not the other way around.

We are also a religion by at least three different dictionary definitions of the word. Four if you want to stretch it a bit.

[Chinaski]

My cop-out perspective is because I don't think UU qualifies as a "real religion" in the first place (and yes, I know, the subject is open to much debate), and UUs seem to be de facto atheists who just don't want to abandon believing for social or superficial reasons.

Hence, I don't include UU in my generalizations when I talk about "religions".

But I'm not an atheist. My minister isn't an atheist. I suspect that a bit less than half of the congregation that I belong to could be classified in that manner.

Unitarian Universalism is a theistic tradition that opened its doors to the wisdom of non-believers. Not the other way around.

We are also a religion by at least three different dictionary definitions of the word. Four if you want to stretch it a bit.

You might not call yourself that, but it seems to be really a few steps away. At least to agnosticism.

As for the definition of religion, I did specify that it was open to debate.

[statichaos]

As for the definition of religion, I did specify that it was open to debate.

Wow, and here I thought that the dictionary was used to put an end to debates. Shall I look up the meaning of a True Scotsman while I'm at it?

[Chinaski]

As for the definition of religion, I did specify that it was open to debate.

Wow, and here I thought that the dictionary was used to put an end to debates. Shall I look up the meaning of a True Scotsman while I'm at it?

Semantics and semiotics are different things.

Btw, how did a UU end up on RDF?

[statichaos]

Btw, how did a UU end up on RDF?

I didn't. I was over at TAF taking on fundamentalists when I found out about this place during the RDF bad craziness. I love TAF, but I find this place more conducive to the conversations that I enjoy, such as this one.

[Chinaski]

Btw, how did a UU end up on RDF?

I didn't. I was over at TAF taking on fundamentalists when I found out about this place during the RDF bad craziness. I love TAF, but I find this place more conducive to the conversations that I enjoy, such as this one.

Makes sense. Unfortunately I have to abandon the conversation for now. Need to read two stories from Dubliners for tomorrow.
Cheers!