Is it easier to live a life with or without religion?

[Lark]

I think it's easier to surrender yourself to a belief. You don't have to think, analyze and deal with the pain of finding less than ideal realities or possibilities. But I don't think it is in any way better unless you don't have the intellectual capacity to even question your own beliefs.

I dont know how to but I'd like to have been able to post YLJ's post along with this, it intrigues me.

The simpleton theory of religion is a bit flattering toward the athiest or non-believer but how often do you encounter people who are genuinely like that?

The easy life that each of you describe is not one which I'm familiar with as a believer, not something that I associate with either modern or ancient beliefs, except rhetorically, and in theory the state of comfortable intellectual numbness could be associated with anything, belief or non-belief, as a kind of psychological coping strategy or ego defence.

From the totalitarian systems of history and today to the brotherhood of street gangs or outlaw bikers suspending disbelief and becoming comfortably complicit is all part of it.

 

[Lark]

I don't know about statistics, but I believe I live in one of the most atheistic countries in the world. It is weird.. I don't know what most of my family thinks about religion, the subject is nonexistent here. It's not like hush-hush, it's just that no one is interested in it. I guess that makes the religious people stand out. And often negatively.

I reckon this is how the idea of God will pass out of the world, not with a bang but a wimper.

The only ones I've had problems with are the ones who think they have it figured out and like to point out that I am not doing as well as they are... They don't beat themselves, as they already know they are saved, but instead they use religion to project on anyone who is less than perfect. Compared to them I would rather have the lazy live-and-let-live atheist.

Well, there are athiests who believe that way too so I see it as being less to do with the ideas than to do with the personality or character structures of the individuals professing them. Mind you, at particular times and places or contexts the ideas are vehicles for or channels for that sort of character structure. Anyone who is on a ego trip and professes to be Christian is mistaken.

I very much agree. And to be fair, there aren't many of the folks I am talking about, but they are so noisy that they are more likely to be remembered than the good guys. One of them was a pregnant lady with a bicycle. I was walking to the store and had the worst hang-over, needed something to level it off, she came the opposite direction. She had a load of groceries on the handle of the bike and the baby and quite cheap looking clothes, and as I was passing by she looked at me and said "May God bless you" or something like that, and I just froze there unable to reply anything... From my point of view she had it tough taking care of her family with limited resources, but she was the one to empathize with my hang-over...

The other one was my room mate. He was from Ghana and he had the best interpretation of Christianity I've ever heard of. There was no blame game that you ordinarily find whenever believers are around... He was like "If God didn't want us to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, why did he put them on the shelves of the supermarket?" For him there was no evil, except "mental slavery". I talked with him a lot about his way of being a Christian, and it was the most attractive version of Christianity I've come across. There definitely was a strong aspect of self-improvement in it, and not in terms of what you do, but what you think, kinda... I don't know, it's hard to explain, but it wasn't like this list of dos and donts that they have in this western kind of Christianity.

Well that is the sort of belief that I profess and many like me, although I know where you are coming from, someone spoke at our church just last week about an adult education course he had attended for faith development and about how he had discovered an alternative to rules, fear and controlling religion, I sort of sat and listened and wondered where this experience had come from because it wasnt mine.

What rules and guidance exist I find no burden because its just that, guidance, its good news after all, there's a good life to be had if you want it. What prohibitions there are arent exclusive to religion in any way and I can think of lots of secular or rationalist reasons for, for instance, not abusing alcohol, smoking cigarettes or sleeping around.

 

[Lucas]

For me, I think it is far easier to live without, because I would probably be very conflicted about any religion I believed in.

On the one hand, I would have my own faith, and on the other I would have my eternal questioning, and there would be interrogations, and probably hot pokers.

Easier to just say "we cannot know", and be agnostic.

 

[Moiety]

I dont know how to but I'd like to have been able to post YLJ's post along with this, it intrigues me.

The simpleton theory of religion is a bit flattering toward the athiest or non-believer but how often do you encounter people who are genuinely like that?

The easy life that each of you describe is not one which I'm familiar with as a believer, not something that I associate with either modern or ancient beliefs, except rhetorically, and in theory the state of comfortable intellectual numbness could be associated with anything, belief or non-belief, as a kind of psychological coping strategy or ego defence.

From the totalitarian systems of history and today to the brotherhood of street gangs or outlaw bikers suspending disbelief and becoming comfortably complicit is all part of it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You don't feel you live an easier life because of your beliefs?

It's just as simple as, you have some answers for a few questions that I do not. You know you are either going to hell or heaven when you die, for example. I could end up anywhere really. It's easier if you compare two people who are similar, only difference being their religious beliefs. It's theoretically easier.

But, I think if it's a belief that stays with you throughout the years (if it's truly a belief, and not just a lie you tell yourself - which, I've been there, used to be catholic, was a choir boy and confirmed and all) you have to get something out of it. Certain mental and even physical battles will be easier.

 

[soccerjunkie1996]

Don't really need an imaginary friend to live my life well, so I'm gonna say without.

 

[nolla]

Well, there are athiests who believe that way too so I see it as being less to do with the ideas than to do with the personality or character structures of the individuals professing them. Mind you, at particular times and places or contexts the ideas are vehicles for or channels for that sort of character structure.
---
What rules and guidance exist I find no burden because its just that, guidance, its good news after all, there's a good life to be had if you want it. What prohibitions there are arent exclusive to religion in any way and I can think of lots of secular or rationalist reasons for, for instance, not abusing alcohol, smoking cigarettes or sleeping around.

Yes you are right, it isn't about Christianity itself. Maybe it is one of the only places for people to go to when they are feeling like they need some meaning in their lives. That is the only thing I am worried about the rise of atheism. If people stay in the meaningless state, then we are in lots of trouble.

 

[EcK]

Easier if you're a coward or/and 'not too good with your head' maybe.
But that later point is discutable.

 

[Lark]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You don't feel you live an easier life because of your beliefs?

It's just as simple as, you have some answers for a few questions that I do not. You know you are either going to hell or heaven when you die, for example. I could end up anywhere really. It's easier if you compare two people who are similar, only difference being their religious beliefs. It's theoretically easier.

But, I think if it's a belief that stays with you throughout the years (if it's truly a belief, and not just a lie you tell yourself - which, I've been there, used to be catholic, was a choir boy and confirmed and all) you have to get something out of it. Certain mental and even physical battles will be easier.

I dont know anything, I'm in the exact some position as you.

Belief is not to know this, belief is just some faith.

 

[Lark]

Yes you are right, it isn't about Christianity itself. Maybe it is one of the only places for people to go to when they are feeling like they need some meaning in their lives. That is the only thing I am worried about the rise of atheism. If people stay in the meaningless state, then we are in lots of trouble.

Well I heard a good radio piece this morning suggesting that the decline in religion meant that people did not have bible stories told to them when they where growing up and they had more to say that simply believe in God, they incalcate historical imagination and norms which whether people abandon them in whole or in part in later life provided previous societies with a framework to begin with.

 

[Moiety]

I dont know anything, I'm in the exact some position as you.

Belief is not to know this, belief is just some faith.

I've met some fervent believers that would say otherwise. If your faith is not something you can trust in the same way as knowing, what is the point of being religious though? If it's not shedding light into anything...I don't see the point. I'm already a good christian in many ways without going to church so I doubt my daily life habits would change. But if I don't "know" anything I can trust...I don't get it.

 

[strychnine]

The question is geared towards you the individual, not a society. State your case.

I tried "with religion" while growing up, but I find it much easier to live without (presently).

I'm glad you asked this to the individual, Beat, because I think this varies greatly

 

[Mole]

Deracinated and Uncivilized

Yes, to live without religion is to be deracinated.

For there has never been a civilization not based on a religion, including our own.

Yes, to live without religion is to be deracinated and uncivilized.

 

[Nicodemus]

Yes, to live without religion is to be deracinated.

For there has never been a civilization not based on a religion, including our own.

There has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

Nor has there ever been a civilization less religious and more knowledgeable than today. Societies are founded anew every day.

Yes, to live without religion is to be deracinated and uncivilized.

So it is likely that it is not possible to live a civilized life without religion.

History provides much evidence against your assumption.

For instance, our civilization is based on christianity and it is not possible to understand our civilization without understanding christianity.

And in particular it is not possible to understand English literature without understanding the Bible.

And even more interesting, it is not possible to understand the noosphere without understanding the universalist nature of christianity.

That does not require one to 'live a life with religion', unless you think you live your life with Tolkien as well.

 

[Unkindloving]

I have faith in myself, but not in unknown outside forces. I'm happy with this, but it's because I can handle not having something to chalk up existence to. Most people who keep to their religion want something that informs them of how we are here, why we are here, and where we go when we aren't here. They want something outside of themselves to devote to and to place blame or praise on.

Devoting to myself in such a way is far easier. If I wanted all of the questions answered, I'm sure it would prove more difficult.

 

[Qlip]

Scientific studies have shown that people that are religious have lower stress and are happier. I honestly think this has less to do with the religion itself than the fact that belonging to a religion is a good way to get an instant support group.

I think in the end we all deal with the same issues in the same ways, but we use different labels and models in our heads to understand them, I really believe it's all the same.

 

[Mole]

Nor has there ever been a civilization less religious and more knowledgeable than today. Societies are founded anew every day.
History provides much evidence against your assumption.
That does not require one to 'live a life with religion', unless you think you live your life with Tolkien as well.

Western civilization is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism and Christianity. And to understand the West it is necessary to understand all three.

And today we have three civilizations - the West, Indian civilization and Chinese civilization. And there is no fourth civilization. Islam claims to be a fourth civilization, but it is only a large political religion.

And you are right societies are founded every day but only within a civilization. And there is no new civilization on the horizon.

Most of us don't understand our own civilization, never mind the other two.

And interestingly the Enlightenment occurred within Western civilization but not within Indian or Chinese civilization.

And so we can only be at home in our own civilization otherwise we are deracinated.

However once we are at home, we can venture forth and learn Hindi and Mandarin.

 

[Nicodemus]

So I understand that either you are refraining from your original assertion that "to live without religion is to be deracinated and uncivilized" or you are not really discussing the topic at hand.

I would like you to define what it means "to live with(out) religion" and to be civilized.

 

[Mole]

So I understand that either you are refraining from your original assertion that "to live without religion is to be deracinated and uncivilized" or you are not really discussing the topic at hand.

I would like you to define what it means "to live with(out) religion" and to be civilized.

I am often accused of not discussing the topic at hand. But I'll give it a go.

I would define "to live without religion" as not understanding the religion of our civilization. It means not to understand it emotionally, not to understand it intellectually, not to understand it socially and not to understand it poetically.

Of course one can be an atheist and fully understand our religion. In fact most atheists understand our religion better than the believers.

And a civilization contains all the feelings, behaviours and thoughts humans are capable of. When we are in the midst of a civilization, we feel we can fully be ourselves, we can be fully human.

So it is no surprise we only have three styles of civilization.

But what is interesting is that they are distinguished by the distinctions they make, for we perceive by making distinctions.

How's that for addressing the topic?

 

[Nicodemus]

I am afraid your definitions of the above terms are somewhat different from what one would usually think them to mean. But if we agree on these definitions, we can also agree on most of your claims.

I believe more than ever that my candidate for your new username is very suitable.

 

[Xander]

We're social animals, it's far more comforting to say "yes I'm one of those" than to try to communicate that the things which you support have only one title and that is a rather meaningless "The stuff I support" and that's pretty much universal.

Personally I'd prefer to have a title for my beliefs but the definitions change depending on what someone's trying to prove so I stick to agnostic as most don't use the word regularly which means I get to hand them the definition but still make it sound like there's a whole slew of people who think like me.

Oh and deciding on what is good and bad and why you should do this rather than that is more difficult without a prescribed format to accept or reject imo.