Religion is not interchangeable with theism. Many people, including me, are religious whilst also being atheists. Depending on the source, religion can be defined as a supernatural based idea (god/gods) or (the way I see it) more like Emile Durkheim saw it “a unified system of beliefs and practices […] which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them.”
So, for me, religion gives me a sense of community, support and a structure to guide me. It doesn’t rule me and I don’t have to worship or pray to a supernatural being that doesn’t exist. So in my (biased) view, I get the good bits of religion without the shitty awful bits such as telling everyone only my religion is right, telling everyone what to do based on what I think and generally being an arsehole.
Most people like some type of community because we are, at bottom, social creatures. My own religion allows me to be both individualistic and also part of a community and I think a lot of people feel that their religion gives them that sense of community. A more worrying aspect of religion is theistic religion - worship of a supernatural being/beings - because that is irrational, which is not in itself a concern, but when whole societies are controlled via theism then people suffer.
That’s kind of my point. There is no god (or at least not one I believe in), my religion is an atheist based one. The morals that we have are our own, we don’t see them as anything other than that. I don’t want anyone to feel that I’m trying to evangelise or recruit here so I’m not going to go into details, but if you want to, follow the link to community I moderate thats in my profile and there are outgoing links on that community.
I think part of it has to do with how we cope with death. Almost all religions are centered around what happens when we die. Whether it’s reincarnation or an afterlife, most believe that there’s something beyond. I think that to a certain extent we’re predisposed to have this mindset.
Being a programmer, I was always just as baffled about religion, mysticism, and various esoteric stuff, because it just didn’t make logical sense, and it was hard to take people who are into it seriously.
tldr:Was sceptical, gave it a try just for fun and to see what’s the fuss, found out it’s net-positive as long as you don’t take it too seriously, let it define your whole personality, or use it as an excuse to be a dick. It’s basicaly just like playing solo TTRPGs, and it feels great once you get rid of your jugement.
Then, during high-school, I’ve stumbled upon the Psychonaut Field Manual, which is a nicely written guide about chaos magic. And I read into it, because the presentation seemed fun, and most importantly - it was the first book where the introduction and first few pages convinced me, that it makes sense and could, in a limited fashion, actually work.
What convinced me was looking at mysticism as something akin to “hacking your own mind” - by using symbols, rituals, meditation and whatnot, you convince your unconscious mind to push you slightly more towards doing what you need. And that sounded like something interesting, especially since I just finished reading the Art of Game Design, which had a few great chapters focused on the subconscious and how to work with it when being creative. Of course I still don’t believe that you can affect any external factor of your life through it, but now something like “I do a ritual to finish this exam”, and my subconscious may just give me a little nudge to study more, since that’s what it’s convinced we really want.
So I went into the rabbit hole of modern mysticism, and eventually discovered more about the whole movement of Chaos Magic, with authors like Phil Hine. And their reasoning has won me over - their main point is that all mysticism is the same - learning symbols and doing rituals, so you can convince your subconsciousness. And the flavor or dogma you attach to it doesn’t matter, so just do whatever you want. Want to do Wicca? Suit yourself. Christianity and angels? If it works for you. Invoke Spongebob with pentagram out of pizza, or go with Lovecraftian Old Gods? Why not, the only important thing is that you do really believe in it, because otherwise you probably won’t convince your subconscious.
And that’s why they work with something I find really interresting - they call it paradigm shifts, where you hop around various systems, dogmas and religions, immersing yourself into their rabbit hole and honestly giving it a try, to see if that’s what works for you. And that sounded like fun, letting go of the prejudice about religion or esoteric bullshit, and just trying it out for myself, log what results I have, and have fun learning about it.
There’s another point that won me over for chaos magic - one of their core principles is, that every mysticism was so full of themself and took it too seriously, that they’ve forgotten how to have fun. And having fun while doing it is important.
And so I throughout next few years went into the rabbit hole of Wicca, Golden Dawn, Enochian, and probably bunch more I don’t really remember, just trying to take it seriously and see for myself how does it work for me. The hardest part was getting rid of feeling absolutely stupid when you sit in your room with candles, incense, and memorize various bullshit, but it was still pretty fun.
To get to the point - Wicca is one of the only systems I’ve tried that is also a Religion, and works with deities. And I’ve enjoyed this system more than the others, which were more focused on occultism and abstract concepts, because it basically meant you got an imaginary friend. The small daily rituals, that are celebrating nature while also being appreciated by said imaginary friend were fun little games, that made my day pretty much universally better, just like it turned a simple walk through nature as something wonderful - because I started paying more attention to what is around me.
As long as you don’t take it too seriously, don’t let it control your life, don’t talk about it with others that are not interrested, or use it as an excuse to be a dick to anyone, and just enjoy adding a little bit of magic and fantasy into your daily life, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s a net-positive change, and not too different than just playing a game of TTRPGs.
I’ve since forgotten about it and don’t really do anything in regards to religion or mysticism, but I still fondly remember the few years I’ve tried, and it has definitely changed my point of view on a lot of things in life. I’d recommend to everyone here to give it a try and see for yourself - you don’t have to tell anyone, it’s a fun rabbit hole to explore (if that’s something you find interresting), and most importantly - you can decide it’s not for you and forget about it at any moment.
I was born in a very interesting family. Both sides of my family were from very opposing denominations of Christianity.
One of the Church of Christ (not Latter Day Saints), believing that dancing and musical instruments were a sin, took the lords supper (wine and bread) every Sunday and believed that if you were not baptized in their church that you were going to hell.
The other, Baptists, who would regularly invite bands to play at their church, rarely took the lords supper and would not batt an eye if you visited a friend’s church of a different denomination.
They both used the exact same version of the Bible (King James Version). Although, the baptists didn’t care if you used a newer translation to get a better understanding. This great divide in the interpretation of the word of a book drove me away from believing in the traditional Christian sense of a god.
Each denomination teaches their own interpretation. If the word is divine and should be read and understood in the same way everywhere, why should I believe one over the other?
Because at the core of every religion is a tiny grain of truth. It’s 50% intentionally fabricated nonsense, 45% poetic license and the personal interpretation of someone long dead, and maybe 5% of it is truly profound and universal
If you look at religions, they have a lot of commonalities. There is an inhuman, unknowable creator, or source. Then there’s some number of superhuman beings who serve or reject the creator, and may interact with humans. They don’t interact with the creator directly though - they’re also not human, but have some exaggerated human qualities
The abyss, the primal chaos, Ginnungagap for the Norse… It’s the nothing that spawned and makes up everything. It’s ever present, but you know it by acting in harmony with it, and destroy yourself by acting against it.
Then there’s the pantheons, servants, great spirits, naga or what have you - they’re assertions for how to live in harmony with it, some kind of greater being that is partially right and partially wrong. They’re value systems, and they make mistakes in most myths, showing the flaws. Sometimes they created the world from the abyss/chaos, sometimes they created humans, sometimes they just stumbled upon us. Or sometimes aliens that created us as a slave race, depending on how you want to see it.
And then there’s the reason for it - in one way or another, it’s to become something greater through our time alive. Often to become strong or pure enough to be able to join the deities, or to be able to exist in the void without burning to nothing.
You do it through engaging in life - mindfully doing anything will teach you truths about the universe, and through various forms of introspective meditation (or prayer) to bring yourself more in harmony with your version of the truth.
That’s all more like spirituality, but then you spend generations adding in some cautionary tales - we do live in a society after all, these are like bedtime stories that mix our history with the values our society prizes.
Often heroes grow spiritually they make distilled rules to guide the society to improve… Generally they’re pretty reasonable (in the context of the original period)
But then sometimes a more temporary spiritual leader decides they don’t like something - clearly it’s unnatural and unaligned with the truth of existence because they really hate it… So obviously it’s the will of the creator, and it gets tacked on to the guiding code.
And several hundred years later, once the religion has gained institutional power in a much larger and more hierarchical society, assholes just add in whatever is convenient. The core message is forgotten, there’s endless stuff tacked on teaching morals or history that can be reinterpreted… Or maybe society just changed, and you have to drop some rules or lose the flock
Tldr: there’s a core message of how to grow spiritually as a person, and a glimpse of something true about the nature of reality (in a very metaphorical, poetic kind of way). The promise of a reason and a goal speaks to everyone… But then they keep going, and bury the original message by teaching all sorts of other junk, often misinterpreted for an agenda centuries ago, in the same tone. Often misinterpreted today for an agenda.
(Side note, all ancient stories are super poetic and metaphorical, even historical ones… They’re probably just more fun and more easily remembered when they’re repeated around the fire for the next generation)
If you’re really interested in an answer and not only trying to dunk on religious people: I’d suggest reading a few philosophical critics of religion. Like Feuerbach and Marx.
Religion always fulfilled a certain function to people. Way back, it was used to answer questions which have been properly answered by science (where does the sun/thunder and lightning come from, etc.). But that’s not the whole picture of religion’s function in society.
People still have an urge to answer questions science can’t/won’t answer (what is right and wrong? *why are we here? how should we treat each other?). Religion fulfills the function answering a subset of these questions.
what is right and wrong? how should we treat each other?
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer. Suffering is inherently unpleasant and it morally follows that we ought to avoid inflicting it on others. (As basic and concise as I can be.)
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs. One religion can justify terrorism while another dictates that we must sweep the ground in our walking path to avoid killing insects (Jainist monks).
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc. When one reads religious canons, they are picking and choosing concepts that already align with their moral/ethical beliefs. That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists). He’s a good read on this.
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. Source
Most Christians would morally disagree with that disproportionate punishment of children. That’s because their moral beliefs are derived from outside of that canon. There’s plenty of other examples (including in the New Testament) in which Christians reject. They are using their existing moral beliefs to interpret the Bible.
why are we here?
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence? Cosmic chance is a sufficient answer in my opinion.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing the efficacy of religion in actually answering those questions.
You can make compelling universal arguments based on capacity to suffer.
I’m not saying that you can reach verdicts about morality without religion. But you’ve left the realm of science which was proposed as the religion killer.
Religion is not a good basis for morality. Look at all of the horrible conflicts and evil actions committed on the basis of religious beliefs.
It’s about as bad as science. Look at all the atrocities which were “justified” by science. E.g.: racism, eugenics, …
Also, studies have demonstrated that morality develops thru our upbringing; culture, our parents, peers, schooling, etc.
You do realize that religion is a societal construct, right?
That’s not to say religion can’t play a part in shaping a given culture, which in turn influences the moral development of everyone in that society (including atheists).
Yeah… That was my original point…
An example I like to use for Christians is when God sent two bears to maul and kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head.
What exactly is it you are trying to prove? Why are you trying to dunk on Christianity? I don’t believe in god and I know of all that fucked up shit done in the name of the lord. I wanted to give an explanation of what functional role religion can have for humans.
Does there really need to be a purpose to our existence?
No, but try making people stop asking that question.
I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
I’m not religious myself. But I have dear friends who are very religious and we literally never differ when it comes to questions about religion/morals. They belive, I don’t. I know it’s important to them and I hate it if some edgy atheists reduce the topic down so much. Not as much as I hate radical christians/muslims/jews being hypocritical asswipes. But religion probaply didn’t make them asswiper.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Me: I understand you were posing those questions to convey why people turn to religion, and I’m not disputing that.
You: Sorry if I’m judging you too harshly, but you kind of seemed like you actually wanted to dispute that.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one. For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Racism, speciesism, and extremism/fascism plays a part in those examples I listed as well.
You most definitely did jump to a bunch of false conclusions about me and my motivation in my comment.
Well, you know. Maybe I’ve read a bit much between the lines. But I think your last comment just wasn’t completely in the best of faith. I’ve read paragraph per paragraph and once I’ve read a bit further (after formulating an answer to that specific point), I see some sort of excuse of how your really don’t suggest the best stuff. I must say: I felt a little bit like you tried to insult me just a teeensy bit, by taking back some of the things you wrote two paragraphs before. And I feel a bit bullshitted if someone replies to me like that.
Both mind-reading and jumping to conclusions are cognitive distortions which you are guilty of committing here.
Could you please talk like a human being? Who talks like that? Get on with it!
Is this not a discussion forum? I was trying to have a discussion about what you were saying.
Yeah, well it’s less about what you say in the discussion, but more the way how you say it. I feel like you’re a bit … sketchy with how you throw your horrible arguments and excuse them two paragraphs later. Let’s say, I had to jump to conclusions, because you said some seriously bad stuff and I had to stumble a bit during your text. So please talk like a human being? Please remember that english is not my first language and I’m not the best at communicating by text in my second language.
You shouldn’t be so hostile or personally offended by simple conversation.
Didn’t feel like “simple conversation”. More like "debate bro says some heinous shit and tries to get away with it " vibes. Maybe I’m not the one at fault here by being illogical, but rather someone in this conversation has said some a bit… right-wing stuff.
Nope, just more unfounded conclusions you are jumping to.
They’re not unfounded. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. You’re seeming a bit like a dick. That’s what I was talking about.
And I’m not “dunking” on Christianity. It was just an example. You’re misframing me as an anti-theist, which I’m not.
Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty. Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments; science was not the means of justification.
Whoooo boy. Your first actual point it it sure is… a doozy. Where shall I begin?
Finally, you are incorrect about science being a justification for cruelty.
That’s one hell of a statement you make there. Surely, you can’t mean that in no point in history, science has ever been the justification for carrying out heinous acts. (in the business, we call this…)
Whether it’s the Tuskegee Experiment, animal experimentation, or Nazi experiments
Where are you getting these examples from? Why are you talking like you’ve made any point to disprove any of my statements by naming these random examples? I’m afraid you’re not getting my point? In what way would I have claimed anything about these racist/speciesist practices? And then you claim that…
science was not the means of justification.
Yes, you are correct. The name of science is never to blame for these things… or is it?
Tuskegee, animals, Nazi experiments. Why do you mash two human and one animal examples together? We were talking about humans, were we not? Why would you compare a human to an animal? Except… “Race” scientists have been claiming for centuries that africans (or less aryan peoples) are inferior to the human race. There are science books still used in education today claiming that black people have a higher pain threshold and other stuff in which the “science of the time” justified why some people can be treated like animals… or slaves. Mengele was standing on the shoulders of race science when he thought that it is ok to torture non-aryans. He was not a lunatic. He was a respected physician for the time, contributing to science. … and today we know, he was a monster. But he, as well as the people running the Tuskegee Experiment were raised on the “scientific discovery”, that non-white people are not human, justified for slave trade. You can even go into the origins of science in the west: In ancient rome or greece. They were f-cking slave cultures. You can’t have a slave culture and reach that level of “civilisation” without some sort of scientists trying to justify, why we have to mistrust our intrinsic instict to treat our brothers and sisters with respect and instead bind them as a slave. That was the science of the day, my friend.
So, you were saying that science didn’t justify racism? Like… ever?
Even if someone argues that the ends justify the means, that is a philosophical argument; not a scientific one.
Who are you talking to? Are you answering your own points just after you made them, again?
For instance, utilitarianism is often the basis for justifying immoral experimentation.
Will this be in the test, professor? /s Who the question that made you answer that?
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, even when pertaining to science.
Yeah… guess, which societal institution used to be the one who almost exclusively was concerned about philosophy and ethics for the last say… about 4 millenia? Starts with an “r”. Historical context is important.
I felt like you argued in bad faith and explained how I came to that conclusion. Please don’t invalidate my perception.
I’m not gonna bother reading and refuting your childish insults
Way to go proving what I figured: That you’re doing the equivalent of “liking the sound of your own voice”. You’re not engaging in conversation, you’re trying to lecture me. I don’t consider that respectful. When I point that out, you claim that I argue in “bad faith”. Seriously?
Then read the arguments I made and adress them. You’re smart, you’ll figure out which paragraphs contain arguments.
The fact is that text has no tone of voice, and you interpreted a neutral comment in a negative way. That’s on you.
Never claimed that it had a tone of voice. But the way written text is structured can still convey the feeling that you’re not being talked with, but rather talked to.
It’s less about tone, but “reading between the lines”.
Just because someone respectfully disagrees
I take issue with the word “respectfully”. Don’t invalidate my perception, please. I also explained why I felt like that.
I’m gonna try to give an explanation using both science and religion. We don’t understand what gravity is. We know it pulls us to the ground, we know it exists, we know it’s what keeps everything stuck to the earth, but we don’t know what it really is or why it works, it just works. Physics aims not to explain gravity, but to define it. Now let’s look at, say, the Bible. It is stated in the Bible that God created life, the earth, and man in 6 days. Science isn’t sure how we got here, it just knows that we are here. Science aims to define the natural world and religion aims to explain the natural world.
Both science and religion try to answer the question ‘why’. Religion says ‘a God did it!’. Science says ‘I don’t know. Let’s observe our environment and see what theory could best explain what we see. If anyone later proves me wrong, I won’t be upset, I will be glad that I understand more.’
People want to belong to something bigger than them. This includes a magical cloudy sky kingdom where you must wear white shrouds, and your whole family is there and not talking about embarrassingly antiquated political views
Organized religion or religion in a spiritual sense? I do believe there is some higher power that created matter and the laws of physics. But I don’t believe they care or even know about us.
Do you believe this for any particular reason, or just because it is psychologically reassuring? I’m not trying to be a smartass, I’m honestly curious about your perspective.
I’ve watched about 1000 hours of the Atheist Experience, Aron Ra, Cosmic Skeptic, Christopher Hitchens, and just about every popular religious apologist you can think of too. I’ve never hear a single compelling argument for creationism (I know you are talking about creation in the more macro sense, I don’t think you’re a young earth creationist).
The only one I’ve ever seen that was even worth giving serious thought is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I find to be deeply flawed as well, it is simply the least bad argument. So my ultimate question to you would be this: If there is a “higher power” that created the universe as we know it, but that higher power is completely indistinguishable from the laws of nature as we observe them then why believe and why care?
Well I’m not opposed to the idea that we(the universe)were created by accident. Maybe we are a simulation, maybe I’m the creator of the universe and everything is just my brains imagination.
I don’t really know or put much thought into it, but I can’t just think. Matter was just there. Like the bug bag happened with nothing before it.
So your claim is that tge universe had a beginning? To me, the universe having existed forever, and it starting to exist at some point with nothing, not even time before makes just as little sense.
Really, things existing at all makes little sense, it would make much more sense if nothing existed. But that is at odds with what I observe.
“Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and also a protest against it. Religion is the opium of the masses. Religion is the heart of a heatless world. Religion is the soul of soulless conditions.”
Religion isn’t a separate thing from culture that can be cleaved off like this. The form it takes is contingent on conditions of people’s lives and power structures. People also don’t make a conscious choice to believe or disbelieve in religion, if you’re an atheist you can’t just willingly choose to believe. Society is not directed by the willful actions of people’s collective beliefs like this either, it’s more a Darwinian process.
Also civil religion is a thing and it doesn’t necessarily align with what people think of “religion” but operates in a very similar way. A lot of atheists are probably adherents to aspects of civil religion without knowing or thinking of it this way.
if you’re an atheist you can’t just willingly choose to believe
I wouldn’t really agree with this. As a programmer, I was always sceptical and an atheist, but I never had problems with believing into something obviously not true, such as when LARPing or TTRPGs. And when I once got into a rabbit hole of mysticism in high-school, one of the movements I read about was advocating for doing “paradigm shifts”, forcing yourself to believe into a specific religion, like truly believe, so you can try it out in practice and see whether you get something out of it or not and should move on. And since that felt like a fun experiment, I tried it with various dogmas or religions, and once you get over the inherent jugement and feeling pretty stupid chanting, drawing circles and burning incense in your room (which may take a while), you may get to point where you slowly convince yourself to believe. That is, if you are serious about it. And it’s also pretty fun.
You’re presupposing there was nothing at one point. We know that is the case for the physical universe because otherwise entropy would have ended actions an eternity ago. An eternal being not subject to the laws of thermodynamics has no logical need for a beginning.
Add comment