• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

so why don't you have religion?

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Incidentially, as I think about this thread, is there not a problem of definition going on here? Beyond the whole organised vs. disorganised or unorganised thing, is religion what you believe, what you do, where you're from or where you belong?
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
An honest assessment of religion would find that it fares reasonably well in comparison to modern political ideologies, where religion had healing, hospitality and beginnings of medicine modern political ideologies had the atrocities of Mengala (spelling) or his soviet equivalents, even in the US and Sweden after the war there were widespread experimentation upon ethnic minorities.
Some modern religions compare favorably with their political contemporaries; others do not, which adds hypocrisy to their "sins" since they usually claim to be answering to some higher standard. Saying that the catholic church of medieval and renaissance times was no worse than the civil establishments of its day similarly is no accolade. It was the political correctness of its day, and only pardoned the likes of Galileo in the 1980s, and acknowledged the excesses of the inquisition even more recently. As we say now about politicians, it's not just the original crime, but also the lying/coverup.

The same can be said for any of the other instances you mention, if you want to talk about clerical abuse and child abuse, that did happen, often with the collusion of so called "respectable society" and the secular/public authorities, thankfully the status of women and children has been gradually changing and so have social attitudes condoning that sort of thing but those are not simple religious attitudes among religions people and truly religious people would be just as conscientious as any other hater of that kind of thing.

Dont hate while you're creating these morals from scratch. Good luck.
No thanks to organized religion for the highlighted. If christians (and jews and muslims) are becoming more tolerant of diversity and respectful of human rights, it is because they are finally learning to see beyond the literal teachings of their books to the broader "truths" contained.

I don't know why you persist in describing morals as "from scratch" if they do not come from the bible, or catholicism, or some other religion of the book. This is not only insulting, but inaccurate as well. There are many sources for moral values.

And yet to many modern mindsets "Do not allow a religious to live" makes more sense.
"Do not allow a religious to foist his faith on others, or to mistreat others for theirs" makes most sense.

I understand why people aren't religious, and I get it, but a lot of these answers are near the same as saying, "I don't like hamburgers because they have ketchup on them, and I'm allergic to the seasame seeds all stuck on top of the bun."
Some people don't like hamburgers because they are vegetarians. They simply get their nourishment elsewhere. Same with faith.

Incidentially, as I think about this thread, is there not a problem of definition going on here? Beyond the whole organised vs. disorganised or unorganised thing, is religion what you believe, what you do, where you're from or where you belong?
Dictionary definitions mention a system of beliefs, often coupled with an established organization and set of practices. To me, the key difference between religion and spirituality is that the first is communal and preexisting, while the second is personal and unique to the believer. The first enables us to share faith experiences with others, while the second guides our individual journey. Often, perhaps ideally, both work hand in hand, as when an individual finds a religious group that resonates with his/her personal spirituality. Neither requires the presence of the other, though. Magic P's comment below is also relevant.

Now, strictly from the social perspective, I don't get involved in religion because there's nothing a religious based community can do that a non-religious community can't, and I'd rather find a community not based on stuff I don't believe in and fond of weird rules like not allowing gay marriage.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Some people don't like hamburgers because they are vegetarians. They simply get their nourishment elsewhere. Same with faith.

Those aren't the comments that I was commenting on. It makes perfect sense to me that people just don't need feel the need for religion, especially in todays society. But people don't say that, they start commenting specifically on he beliefs and acts in certain Christian denomenations. It's just besides the point of the question.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I grew up in a strongly religious environment, but am no longer religious for a couple of reasons.

I find it problematic to have a system of thought that is based on unfalsifiable premises because this makes it impossible to revise one's thinking based on new information. I see unconditional faith as more of a danger than a moral because it cannot correct itself when applied wrongly. Human beings are flawed in their reasoning and much of our "objectivism" today is not even close to what it claims. Our society embraces a great deal of fractured reasoning that gets from point A to B, but lacks a holistic approach necessary to understanding a system impacted by many layered and complex factors. Our perceptions can be tested and demonstrated to be distorted. Because of all of this my focus is on humility of thought and on embracing doubt and uncertainty to be continually testing and retesting my assumptions and the systems of ideas I build on those assumptions.

From a social perspective there are both gains and losses to rejecting religion, being a belief in a higher power or any mystical thinking. I am connected to a number of social groups either as family or coworkers in which it would help me connect better if I embraced their religious and/or mystical thinking. Forming social cohesion is likely one of the primary purposes of this sort of thinking. There are also significant social problems that result from this thinking. The first and worst is confusing the will of a higher power with self-will. People use a belief in a higher power to extend ego and social control and can distort a sense of personal entitlement. This can motivate hurtful behaviors to the extreme of cruelty.

The second social problem is that judgmental mindsets appear to be directly related to how superior and persecuted a group feels. When an "Us vs. Them" dynamic like this occurs it becomes necessary to judge others in order to determine who to reject and accept as equally superior to others and as safe. I have found most religious groups to function with these dynamics and so I avoid them as groups, but connect as individuals when given opportunity. It is not only religious groups as it is that sense of superiority and persecution alone that creates hyper-judgmental mindsets.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
The sorts of bigotry and naive thinking I see you guys reserve for religion really makes me despair. Anyway, I'm not going to provide the encouragenent to retrenching your ignorance that you need. If you have courage and one day decide to do a little unblinkered research I know you'll think again a lot of what you've posted in this thread. Although there's no one will persuade you of that ahead of time.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
morality =/= religion by any means... My grandfather was, by the definition of perfect strangers, the kind of guy who would inconvenience himself to help anyone without a second thought...he was not a religious man. My father does the same and is not religious. I try, I hold myself to strict standards and, though the first to speak my mind bluntly, I will wear myself down to make sure that everyone has a fair chance... And I started this fucking thread! It's hypothesized that religion was created as an early attempt at codifying and standardizing social mores...it doesn't cause them! Lol :rofl1:
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I should clarify that most, if not all, of my post does not apply exclusively to religion. Ideologies of any sort that have unquestioned assumptions and that create strong "Us. vs. Them" dynamics can tend to function in the ways I described. I also wish topics like this could be discussed without the assumption that people believe what they desire to be true. There is a great deal of my own conclusions that I wish were not true and I would feel happy to be wrong.

It is especially important in discussions about the validity of religion to realize that people can be moral, compassionate, and contribute to the well being of all living things within the context of religion as well as outside of it.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Civilization and Religion

There has never been a civilization not based on a religion. So to understand our own civilization, it is necessary to understand our own religion.

And to understand another civilization, it is also necessary to understand their religion.

So a civilized person understands their own religion, and the religions of other civilizations.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There has never been a civilization not based on a religion. So to understand our own civilization, it is necessary to understand our own religion.

And to understand another civilization, it is also necessary to understand their religion.

So a civilized person understands their own religion, and the religions of other civilizations.
If that were how things really worked, we would be much more civilized than we are. Too many people won't even try to understand different perspectives, religious or otherwise, and too many people claim to follow a religion but do not really understand it.

I find it problematic to have a system of thought that is based on unfalsifiable premises because this makes it impossible to revise one's thinking based on new information. I see unconditional faith as more of a danger than a moral because it cannot correct itself when applied wrongly. Human beings are flawed in their reasoning and much of our "objectivism" today is not even close to what it claims. Our society embraces a great deal of fractured reasoning that gets from point A to B, but lacks a holistic approach necessary to understanding a system impacted by many layered and complex factors.
I agree with much of what you have written, but do not see unfalsifiable premises as a weakness of religion. The problem is the unconditionality that you mention. One can revise religious or moral ideas on the basis of new information that is subjective and cannot be falsified. Often this information is simply the belief or practices of others, and the "good" results that come from it, "good" being a very subjective judgment. If one follows a religion (or moral code) unconditionally, however, it is not open to question or scrutiny of any sort. This is the problem.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Because my prayers always fell upon deaf ears.
Because morality is a historical construction, therefore there is no way for a God to judge people with impartial parameters.
Because the concept of soul is 100% irrational.
Because a lot of deaths were caused by religious beliefs.
Because the catholic church has an awful view of what's ''wrong''. And this isn't new. Yesterday it was heliocentrism, today it is birth control. Thank God they don't have power to burn everyone that is using birth control.
That's it, for now.
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Magic (Poriferan)...that is a view I could have entertained when I was younger and less concerned or compelled by that side of life. What I would say is that there's more strange and unbelieveable or beyond belief stuff in quantum physics or the outer reaches of science, to me, than there appears in religion.

I can appreciate such thoughts and they're very fair to say. Very few people understand or even have any hint of what wonders are contained in quantum physics and higher echelons of scientific learning. It's fair to say that science could be completely wrong--it very well may be, for now. However, I don't (and I'm sure many don't) view science as a religion, but as a best-fit description of the world.

When I compare science and religion in best-fit descriptions of the world, I personally choose science since it is grounded in empirical evidence I could potentially falsify through my five senses. With religion, I feel no opportunity to do the same and when I meet something that seems to contradict religion's description, I have no way to cope with the discrepancy other than to deny it. With science, the description can change to better-fit the world, and it fits better with me.

It is entirely possible for me to be ignorant of one or more larger aspects of the world if they are not physical in nature, but since I haven't experienced them, I can't make a value statement to confirm or deny them either way...but they don't best-fit the world as I experience it. Thus I stick with science.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I don't have a religion because it seems worldview-limiting. I'd like to choose my beliefs without an external dissonance-creating-mechanism biasing me towards certain ones.

I have never seen any evidence that the world (including our thoughts and feelings) cannot be explained in physical, deterministic terms.

Also, I was raised Jewish, and I was always really weirded out by everyone saying some prayer in Hebrew -- 95% of them obviously didn't have any idea what they were saying, so how could I have seen it as anything other than a brainwashing mechanism? I don't think there's an evil motive behind it, but I do think it's so far removed from our current issues that it's a huge waste of time. And it's kinda scary that people just follow the pack so easily.

I was always that annoying atheist that questioned everything in Hebrew school.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Religion has seriously impeded my understanding of how the world is/ what God could be. Things are easier to internalize for me without the religion.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I can appreciate such thoughts and they're very fair to say. Very few people understand or even have any hint of what wonders are contained in quantum physics and higher echelons of scientific learning. It's fair to say that science could be completely wrong--it very well may be, for now. However, I don't (and I'm sure many don't) view science as a religion, but as a best-fit description of the world.

When I compare science and religion in best-fit descriptions of the world, I personally choose science since it is grounded in empirical evidence I could potentially falsify through my five senses. With religion, I feel no opportunity to do the same and when I meet something that seems to contradict religion's description, I have no way to cope with the discrepancy other than to deny it. With science, the description can change to better-fit the world, and it fits better with me.

It is entirely possible for me to be ignorant of one or more larger aspects of the world if they are not physical in nature, but since I haven't experienced them, I can't make a value statement to confirm or deny them either way...but they don't best-fit the world as I experience it. Thus I stick with science.

I think there's the same evidence for true religion as there is for scientific theories, honest seekers after truth will seek to constantly affirm the veracity of both, rather than simply accept either. The scientific method itself is not much besides suspending belief until evidence is available, therefore it cant prove or disprove something like the main tenets of most religions, neither would it seek to proceed from the false certainty that most athiests do (and I certainly dont confuse atheisms with science per se). There's also enough empirical evidence to support belief as doubt if you care to look for it.

Although like I said something like string theory or the multiverse really makes merely positing the possibility of an after life seem modest.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I don't have a religion because it seems worldview-limiting. I'd like to choose my beliefs without an external dissonance-creating-mechanism biasing me towards certain ones.

I have never seen any evidence that the world (including our thoughts and feelings) cannot be explained in physical, deterministic terms.

Also, I was raised Jewish, and I was always really weirded out by everyone saying some prayer in Hebrew -- 95% of them obviously didn't have any idea what they were saying, so how could I have seen it as anything other than a brainwashing mechanism? I don't think there's an evil motive behind it, but I do think it's so far removed from our current issues that it's a huge waste of time. And it's kinda scary that people just follow the pack so easily.

I was always that annoying atheist that questioned everything in Hebrew school.

And you no doubt revelled in the final point, I sometimes think that once atheism becomes less of the rebellious, roguish position it is today people will be lost, when you've torn down everything what then?

Anyway, I dont see religion as creating or causing cognitive dissonance, the reality is that if you've got an entirely open mind its the same as having an entirely open front yard or car, people can, often will, dump their junk and rubbish there.

I'd be more persuaded by someone suggesting that you keep an open heart and a closed mind than vice versa.
 

Skip Foreplay

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
35
MBTI Type
ENxP
Reasons I don't have a religion:

1) There are none of them that I think are true. There are none that I wish were true for that matter, and for that I am fortunate. My existence would be dissonant otherwise, and I may sacrifice my intellectual integrity in favor of an ideal.

2) "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your [religion]." I don't even have the capacity to conceptualize that which is. It's enough to keep me busy.

3) The ultimate explanation of the universe must be a naturalistic one. This is true whether we know the explanation, don't know it, can't know it, or can't know if we could know it. That that is so defies the possibility of the supernatural, which means that if Jesus walked on the surface of water, I am far more concerned with the surface of the water, and the bottom of his feet, than anything he had to say. (This conclusion is supported briefly in the thread I made half an hour ago called, I think, Naturalistic vs Animistic Explanation.)

4) The religions I am most familiar with are those monotheistic ones of the Judeo-Christian God. Frankly, I find the lies that fill the pages appalling. It does no good to say they are merely metaphors - they were never taught as such - and if one is happy to know that they are mere metaphors, he has science alone to thank.

5) Religions have always, and will continue to stultify knowledge, reason, and discovery. The Catholic Church banned any theory that taught that the earth moved (i.e. Copernicus' Heliocentric model published 1543) until 1835, and only then because it was too ridiculous to continue. Today, there are young-earth Creationists walking among us, and some of them fight to keep evolution out of public schools. Because that fight is impossible to win (every court case has been lost), many are trying to get Intelligent Design, a watered-down Creationism more compatible with modern science, taught alongside evolution. Every court case of this type has been lost. Knowledge and belief are confounded in such people, and the possible consequences of this indiscriminate psychology are frightening.

6) Humility. What makes science so beautiful is that, because it is incapable at arriving at total proof for propositions, it doesn't try. The enterprise is a progressive whittling away at that which is false, and it accepts revision with open arms. Religion is also incapable of demonstrating total truth, but it tries to, which is only made worse by the fact that it is not progressive.

7) Ethics. Moral systems that are based on authority, if they are ethical, are ethical incidentally, and not by virtue of their authority. Thus, the morality of an ethical system may be judged by reason, for it is just as easy for an immoral man to call himself 'good' as it is for a man who is morally sound. Gods are no different in this respect. If a sadistic God created the universe, and he were to give us ten commandments that were designed for the sole purpose of causing human harm, I would not understand what someone meant if you they to call these commandments 'moral.' There are people who do not understand this, and they are the ones who would follow their creator faithfully.

8) Ethics II. Since the morality of an action may be judged by a rational person, I declare that none of the religions have it totally right. Religious people usually know that this is true, but they pretend that it is not. Consider: If a woman ran into your house bloody and terrified, and she asked you to hide her quickly, I believe you would. When moments later, an irate man with an axe knocks on your door and asks if a woman has entered your house, would you bear false witness? I sincerely hope that you would. Every Christian that I have ever heard answer this question with honesty has said, "yes," and there is hope for anyone who gives that answer. The reason they would choose to bear false witness is because, in this particular situation, it is clearly the moral thing to do. But how could they know that, when God is the sole arbiter of morality? Surely, there is not an eleventh commandment that I have not heard of - one that says, "You can ignore any of the above commandments if you think it's the right thing to do." No, that isn't it at all. The reason that these Christians would be willing to contradict their religion, though few would admit it, is because they stand on their own two feet where their religion breaks down. They are right to do so. The only mistake that they make is to credit God for their integrity. Their justification may be, for instance, "I know what the commandment says, but my God is a Good God, and I know he would not have wanted me to allow that woman to come to harm." They are thus trying to satisfy both ends of a dilemma. On one side, they have a God who is all-loving and all-knowing. On the other side, they have a God who has commanded them to carry out some pretty poor advice. It is a dilemma that cannot be reconciled. What I don't understand is why these people, armed with the knowledge that they are capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong, would pull out all the stops in order to deny themselves such a beautiful gift.

That does it for authoritative ethics. I'll give it a rest for now.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
And you no doubt revelled in the final point, I sometimes think that once atheism becomes less of the rebellious, roguish position it is today people will be lost, when you've torn down everything what then?

Forgive me for being rebellious from age 8-15! I didn't take the position to be an asshole; I took the position because everything else seemed completely wrong-headed.

It's true that I was pretty angry when I was younger -- I felt like this absurd stuff was being forced down my throat, so yes, I was sarcastic in religious school. But my belief system wasn't wrong. I've spent my whole life working on it.

I have no vested interest in tearing things down; it seems like you think atheism was a function of my anger instead of anger being a function of my atheism.

Religious people may think I'm overly pessimistic, but I'm really not. I think lots of stuff is beautiful. But I acknowledge that it's all some particles following some physical laws, including my perception of beauty. I think freeing ourselves from the prison of an external moral system is the first step towards embracing the self.

Unfortunately, every time I have this debate, I always get strawmanned into the position of some hateful cynic. But maybe I always strawman my opponent into a position of a lazy thinker who has to subscribe to someone else's understanding of reality. Hmm.

Anyway, I dont see religion as creating or causing cognitive dissonance, the reality is that if you've got an entirely open mind its the same as having an entirely open front yard or car, people can, often will, dump their junk and rubbish there.

I'd be more persuaded by someone suggesting that you keep an open heart and a closed mind than vice versa.

I don't get what you mean here.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Forgive me for being rebellious from age 8-15! I didn't take the position to be an asshole; I took the position because everything else seemed completely wrong-headed.

It's true that I was pretty angry when I was younger -- I felt like this absurd stuff was being forced down my throat, so yes, I was sarcastic in religious school. But my belief system wasn't wrong. I've spent my whole life working on it.

I have no vested interest in tearing things down; it seems like you think atheism was a function of my anger instead of anger being a function of my atheism.

Religious people may think I'm overly pessimistic, but I'm really not. I think lots of stuff is beautiful. But I acknowledge that it's all some particles following some physical laws, including my perception of beauty. I think freeing ourselves from the prison of an external moral system is the first step towards embracing the self.

Unfortunately, every time I have this debate, I always get strawmanned into the position of some hateful cynic. But maybe I always strawman my opponent into a position of a lazy thinker who has to subscribe to someone else's understanding of reality. Hmm.



I don't get what you mean here.

Perhaps I misjudge you but I know a lot of people who where atheists because it was easy and they liked to think of themselves as trouble makers, a lot of my time at school was spent arguing with the same mindset, I found it lazy, much as you've said you've found the position of believers lazy. Belief asks a lot of people, I dont mean ignorance or any of the other things which are used as strawmen of belief either, I mean real belief, which requires thinking, judging and responding to new evidence which doesnt always vindicate, reinforce or support past opinion. Atheism and disbelief doesnt ask anything. Neither in the mind, nor in actions or deeds either.

You could be entirely right about the self but I'm not convinced that embracing the self is sufficient or the be all and end all of life, I dont think that religious precepts which I do believe are somehow non-physical or unreal or anything of that kind.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Perhaps I misjudge you but I know a lot of people who where atheists because it was easy and they liked to think of themselves as trouble makers, a lot of my time at school was spent arguing with the same mindset, I found it lazy, much as you've said you've found the position of believers lazy. Belief asks a lot of people, I dont mean ignorance or any of the other things which are used as strawmen of belief either, I mean real belief, which requires thinking, judging and responding to new evidence which doesnt always vindicate, reinforce or support past opinion. Atheism and disbelief doesnt ask anything. Neither in the mind, nor in actions or deeds either.

Atheism doesn't ask anything and neither does belief in deities. They're starting points. The difference I see is that when you build up from atheism, you aren't limited by someone else's notions of good or bad, whereas with a specific religion as a starting point, you either agree with someone else or are forced to come up with convoluted justifications for why the religion actually should be interpreted your way.

I am confident my moral system asks at least as much of me as any religion asks of its followers. And I had to come up with it on my own.

You could be entirely right about the self but I'm not convinced that embracing the self is sufficient or the be all and end all of life, I dont think that religious precepts which I do believe are somehow non-physical or unreal or anything of that kind.

So how are the precepts real or physical? I'm not trying to be a dick; I'm really interested.

Also, how is the self not the be-all end-all? It is the basis of everything you will ever experience.
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
Religion has seriously impeded my understanding of how the world is/ what God could be. Things are easier to internalize for me without the religion.

Doesn't it provide many useful examples of what a god could be?

I would consider the religions of the world to be more inspirational and less harmful.
 
Top