For what purpose?

@skado Lots. Money, sexual benefits, political power, social status, social influence, military power, vanity, etc.

Hello violetfree and welcome to the site.

No free steak knives
because
TANSTAAFL
to use them on.

@skado would it be incorrect to substitute naturalism for religion in this discussion?

@waitingforgodo
From my perspective it would not be a wholly adequate replacement.

I feel naturalism and ‘authentic’ religion are 100% compatible ( I host the religious naturalism group ).
But religion imho is more than just a naturalist outlook. It is a practice ( self-discipline ) aimed at, as you say, balancing emotions, instincts, urges, etc. that, while perfectly natural themselves, are not a good fit for smooth functioning in the context of civilization ( as opposed to hunting/gathering ).

It’s an antique word, and old things can accumulate odors.

Of course any effort to curb naturally-evolved instincts on a mass scale will never move much beyond the “attempt” description. But there is even less reason to believe it will be done voluntarily by enough individuals to satisfy the need of a civilized society.

For the entire duration of civilization, lets say the last ten thousand years, and at least the thirty thousand before that, individual Homo sapiens behavior has been mediated “externally” by group consensus, with the result of staggeringly magnified reproductive success for the group.

None of that was voluntary on the part of the individuals, without a unifying narrative that was culturally imposed. With all the increasing division we are witnessing today, I see no reason to think civilized society can be maintained with less external management.

I like all of your suggested modifications. They are actually quite in line with other democratizing movements like the eBay marketplace, on-demand publishing, and home-based 3D printed manufacturing.

I don’t think it really matters what we call it, but the reason I think it is logically classified as religion is because, unlike philosophy alone, it additionally requires some kind of regular practice, most likely in the presence ( remote video? ) of other practitioners. It requires a community-bonding component, and the opportunity for individual emotional development in the ways of collected generational wisdom.

@TheMiddleWay
Not his views, he pretends to be agnostic/atheist but secretly is a raging christian.

Wait - you mean this isn’t SecretChristian.com???
Shit!
Sorry folks, I couldn’t tell the difference!
What with Christians always trying to hide their beliefs and all…

@TheMiddleWay
you sound butthurt.
you should probably see a priest about that.

@AtheistInNC To be fair to skado, and I am often very critical of him. He has never made a secret of his christianity, but has always plainly stated that he is a believer in the christian cultural tradition but not in the literal existence of god.

Of course. Everything humans do becomes corrupted if not well tended. I would argue that corrupt religion is not actually religion. Just like corrupt government is not actually government - it is corruption.

I don't think corruption is intrinsic to religion. Corruption is intrinsic to human beings.

That is one aspect of religion, but there are positive aspects also…

What you’re talking about is the corruption of religion. Like governments can be corrupt, or businesses, or individuals. But business, as a concept, is not inherently corrupt. Neither is religion.

@Krish55 Humans as animals evolved to instinctually gather in groups for safety. Religions does provide a sense of community which satisfies the instinctual need to belong to a group for safety. Other than that, I see no real positive aspect provided by religion or religious institutions.

You know the old truth saying about religion... "Once ti is organized, it becomes a lie."

Yes true. Though it has to be said that the only reason people want to reject the self in the first place is because it was religion which taught them to dislike themselves.

It first feeds narcissism by telling people they are special, because you are the chosen ones of, god, the great spirit, the cosmic life force, the prophets wisdom, or whatever. But then tells them that special people have to be prefect according to impossible standards, which noboby can actually attain. And once hooked on the narcissistic idea that they are special they feel guilt that can not meet those standards, so they keep coming back for more help, They are then fed more narcissistic promises, which makes them feel even more failed. And so on.

The whole language of religions, especially theist religions like Christianity, is steeped in self absorption. “My revelation, My salvation, My relationship with My god, My soul, My immortality, My existential crisis,” etc. etc. The “my” and “our” words are splashed liberally through every text and speech. And that of course makes religion very useful to the charlatans who control it, for profit, prestige, political influence and sexual favours etc. Because nobody is so needy and hungry for reassurance against doubt than those who have been implanted with the vanities of narcissism. So that you will encounter, supposedly grown adults, who still confess to a childish fear of death, and have not yet achieved enough of the natural grown up nihilism, which comes to most just with age, to realize the total unimportance of their own lives, and therefore their deaths too. And who are often engaged in a endless search for so called spiritual enlightenment. Moving ever from one guru, to the next revelation and holy text, in search of the none existent, because their narcissism tells them that they so important, that they are entitled to have a special understanding of the universe not given to all others by work and education alone.

@Fernapple I think it was Sigmund Freud who said, "Christianity is a selfish religion, because it claims , 'god saves me.'"

I don't despise myself, recommend that anyone does, or believe that any major religion recommends it. This is a misunderstanding of scripture. An understandable misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding nonetheless.

Religion is definitely not a perfect manager of emotions, but that is its aim.
Nothing, so far, has had better success, species-wide. Individuals vary.

@skado Your defense and praise of "scripture" and religion is off-putting.

We don't need another believer trying to tell us their "version" of their beliefs. We know and see the horrible effects of religion around us every day. Religion isn't just trying to control emotions, it wants (must) control every aspect of human nature because it states that it already has all the answers.

@skado So you shouldn't get offended that most commenters disagree with you.

@nogod4me

As indeed I don’t. I’ve never been offended by someone expressing an opinion different from mine.

It does get a bit tedious when people mischaracterize my intentions, or put words in my mouth and then try to hold me responsible for them. And in those cases, I am happy to correct the record in no uncertain terms.

And when anybody suggests I don’t belong here, they are going to find that steaming pile of arrogance returned to them expeditiously.

The English language is like that. It has many words for any given concept - some more literal, and some more metaphorical, and so on.

@skado With all due respect, unless you have some source but yourself for that definition (i.e. Spirituality is emotionality) it would seem to be just something you're assuming to facilitate your claim without actually demonstrating that it has any merit outside of your assumption.

@TheMiddleWay Wow. Somebody sounds butthurt.

The difference is that when you created a different post to see if anyone else agreed with my POV someone chimed in and said that as a person who studied the subject, he agreed with me and implied that he knew of others teaching the subject that did too. So it wasn't an assumption that I was making to facilitate a claim it was something that "many" (as defined by someone besides myself) in the field we were discussing agreed. Also, if Skado were to demonstrate that others besides himself had the same perspective and could expand on it, I would find that intriguing. He's done so in the past and I've always found it worth the effort.

So it's not really the same thing, but if you're still butthurt at not being able to find someone who agreed with your POV in that same discussion (I asked and you provided none), you should know it sounds petty.

@TheMiddleWay See how you dishonestly claim that I agree with your claim in relation to the Iroquois 3 Branch debate we had? I never said anything of the sort and for you to pretend that I did is actually pretty pathetic. You are still ignoring the third party that said that they taught on the subject and agreed with me. He also said "many" others agreed with the 3 Branch assignation. How does that make it idiosyncratic? I don't expect an explanation just putting it out there for others.

The hubris that you express assuming you taught me something without demonstrating it in the least is also the kind of disingenuous BS you administer. You appear to believe quite a bit without justifying it. To quote you in our last encounter...

"Belief without evidence makes us no better than the theists who do the same with their god."

@redbai

I’m not making a claim so much as proposing an idea for consideration and conversation.

Most words have multiple definitions, and we choose which definition to use.
Most dictionaries include a definition for the word “spirit” which equates it with emotional states, moods or attitudes. It’s not something I fabricated. It’s one of the ways that word has historically been used, and is documented in our dictionaries.

Of course it is used in other ways as well, but the idea I’m proposing for consideration is… that we may be focusing on the wrong definitions when we dismiss religious ideas.

At minimum, I’m suggesting there are other well-established, time-honored ways of viewing the subject.

"b. spirits A mood or emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering."
[ahdictionary.com]

.

@TheMiddleWay "tons of evidence of [you] attacking" is not a description of doing so effectively. So what if you attacked. Are you denying that a third party backed up my comments and affirmed that he also said that many others agreed? How does that make it idiosyncratic? You are making claims not providing evidence. You know, like the Bible does.

@TheMiddleWay "As effective as you wield it on Skado, so effectively did I wield it on you."

Like I said, you claim things you cannot demonstrate.

"If you feel my attacking your idiosyncrasies was not effective, then you attacking his idiosyncrasies cannot be effective either."

Except you haven't demonstrated that I have an idiosyncrasy. You simply keep claiming it like someone ranting that the Bible is evidence of a god.

"That is alli(sic) have to say here."

Imagine that, you felt so confident in your success in the other thread that you went looking for another post of mine to make a point which you failed to make the other day and pretend to those not aware of the other dialog that you somehow scored points. Why would you need to do that if you're success in the last dialog was so obvious? I didn't go looking for your comments as an excuse to bring up a dialog I claimed to be leaving, you did.

You really are piling on the pathetic here. I would stop if I were you too, it's getting sad.

Anything can mean anything you want it to mean. But there is a long history of uses that are most typical. And emotional states are a commonly referenced subject in the history of the word “spirit”.

Yes, I agree that spirituality means different things to different people. I have to be careful when I use that word, as some people think it means that I am assigning a supernatural quality to my feelings, but for me, any "spiritual" feelings I have are more in the way of feeling connected and in harmony with nature and natural occurrences, sometimes seeing a metaphorical symbolism, but not believing those metaphors to be anything but natural phenomena.

In my quiet moments of "spiritual" thought, I'M the one doing the thinking and assigning the metaphorical value of those moments a role in calming me, or letting things go, making sense of things, and so on. It's an internal meditation or way for me to see the bigger picture outside myself.

My feeling about the word "religious" is different, in that if I were to turn those thoughts over to religious teachings, I'm giving up my own reasoning and thought process over to an outside source, and my feeling is that eventually I might even lose the ability to process my own thoughts in a meaningful manner.

If I were to consider myself to be religious at all (which I have to do in order to perform legal marriages in my state) it is to believe in the power of humanity to use reasoning skills, wisdom passed down through the arts as they pertain to current situations, and our own integrity in keeping on the socially correct path toward happiness and harmony. This does not require anything supernatural, but is a way to link ourselves to the bigger natural evolution of the nature and community around us. Maybe we take cues from the seasons, the expansion of the universe, the origins of the cosmos... for this we need science, not supernaturalism.

@skado So, by YOUR analogy if I were to say that air is water, water is dirt, dirt is air then no-one, not even the Wise and Sagacious @skado can disagree with me and most bow to MY wisdom then?
Oh, imo, the REASON you DO NOT debate with anyone else on here is because you are shit scared of getting your arse handed to you on a platter, that IS the REAL reason.

Your thoughts are not all that different from mine.

I don’t see anything in your description that is in conflict with mine.
I use the word emotions where you use the word feelings. We agree its internal.

We agree religion is an externally imposed human construct, and that most of them are outdated. No obsolete system does what it was intended to do. I’m talking about the ideal, or abstraction, from the perspective of history, and biology. The “intended” function, rather than an assessment of its current state.

All the scientists I am aware of, who seriously study this subject, regard religion as a human constant, not a passing fancy that can be discarded when it falls out of fashion.

On the same day I see people cheering the decline of religion, I see them decrying the increasing murderous violence in our society, without ever noticing a relationship.

Humans need wholesome connection, which historically they have gotten from religion.
We have allowed our religions to be taken over by charlatans and haters, and then we denounce “religion” and abandon it.

Corrupt religion is not religion. It is the diametric opposite of religion.

@skado Nowadays, there are many ways to get a wholesome connection with other humans without the old nostalgic church Sunday meetings and socials.

Attending church might have been one of the only ways to gather with neighbors in times of yore, but in this modern era, we have music, sports, recreational activities, and even online discussion boards for our interests to feel that connection.

I attended church and catechism when I was young and didn't feel the warm fuzziness that perhaps some others did. I didn't like being forced to believe things that didn't make sense... I didn't like having to sit quietly listening to the pastor yammer on and on, with the only entertainment being watching my dad's head nod off and bounce back up with the pretense of listening, just for show. None of us really believed anything being said, but it was the expected thing for good families to show up in church, dressed in our best clothes... After church, we did not stay for any social activities, we just walked home (we lived a block away) and most families got in their cars and drove off to Sunday brunch on their own or to go watch football on TV.

So, I said all that to show a bit of a change from yesteryear to today, where people are a bit more in tune with choosing their own activities. Sunday hiking, socializing with friends and family, fishing, having a picnic in the park, family day, family movie night, even (ugh) watching sports on TV with loved ones, etc., since we all have busy lives away from our loved ones, in many cases. Yes, many in my community do go to church, but many others go off to recreate or just relax.

For me, I live alone, but find ways to socialize with others with similar interests, at the various gathering places where I can have meaningful conversations. I wouldn't want to go to a church even IF I believed what was being taught, where everyone had to be nice to me, whether I deserved it or not. I think (for me) the desire to be part of a church-like community has passed.

Even if a new religion or mythos takes over the way people treat each other, at some point in the future, it can be done through the arts, and hopefully would take root inside people's brains as making sense, not something external that is imposed and doesn't make sense and so is something to fight about.

This is wishful thinking on my part and hopefully someday humanity will be ready for something that everyone can agree on -- but my feeling is that it shouldn't be a denomination of religion that sets people apart - but rather joins everyone together under the same umbrella, regardless of cultural background and inherited beliefs.

My wish is that it would be something that is just an obvious way of thinking that feels right to our common sense, common scientific knowledge, pretty simple and doesn't need pages and pages of text to explain.

@skado Jeez Louise I reckon you'd make a great sailor on a sea going sailing ship because, imo, you can change tack so bloody quickly that it is almost a blur.

@Julie808

I don’t think connection is the only thing, or even the main thing religion supplies. There is a morally instructional component that is conspicuously missing from recreational activities, and a psychologically healing component. For many people.

Like you, I never felt the attraction to church that others apparently did, and I quit going as soon as I was old enough to make my own decisions. I have no interest in it still, and doubt I ever will. I’m just not a “group” person.

But I’m not talking about you or me in this post, or other similar outliers. I’m talking about Homo sapiens. And anthropology. And philosophy. And biology. And yes, Art.

Historically, religion has served a vital function for our species, that is rarely, if ever, recognized by the religious OR the non-religious. It has served as the glue that holds a society’s attention on a single purpose - the purpose of functioning as a civilized unit.

It is not our evolved nature to do so.

We won’t do it by internal, individual motivation. ( By “we” I mean a large enough majority to carry the rest - not the 10 or 15 percent of intellectual outliers. )

That motivation has to be externally applied.

It always ( since the invention of agriculture) has.

There is no unifying alternative on the horizon.

But I’m not suggesting going back to the old, obsolete religions. I agree it must be something that makes sense to the modern mind, and is culturally universal, like science. But if you think about it, even science has to be externally applied - it’s not intuitive.

But more than that, it also must not be antagonistic to the 85% of the human population whose minds are naturally more responsive to myth than to objective analysis. It absolutely must not, as you point out, be a source of contention ( or at least not any more than unavoidably necessary ). It absolutely must not set people apart, but proactively bring them together.

Given that religions are historically a combination of cosmology and morality, my suggestion would be to hand the cosmology over to science, because it has the proven track record of accuracy AND cultural universality.

And then look for, and document, all the overlapping moral teachings of the major world religions, while encouraging a blending and sharing of the diverse rituals and colorful traditions that various peoples will want to maintain. But make tolerance and the celebration of diversity the central feature of the new mythos.

There need not be much to explain if people see that the religion they already have is more compatible with all other religions than they ever realized.

@skado That's a lot to unpack, but I'll address part of what you said.

I don't believe the religions of the past offer much in the way of "morally instructional component" that can be used in today's society, since there is too much to disregard or that is just plain wrong n today's world.

That's what is wrong with a religion offering up specific moral instruction, in my opinion.

Personally I feel that the social laws and common courtesies are addressed in other ways outside religion. They COULD be addressed by religion, but why do so, when we have plenty of laws, rules, etc., needing to be followed for our society.

Could a new religion or mythos better support the social laws and common courtesies? Sure!

However, some of our current social rules are temporary and only make sense in the current context, such as wear a mask and socially distance yourself in crowded spaces, while we are under threat of a pandemic... Don't speed, tailgate or succumb to road rage... Don't litter... All things that don't need to be covered by religion, except by something far broader such as "live honorably" or something like that. We have current social rules and guidelines.

Likewise, some rules from biblical times regarding dietary restrictions (don't eat this or that) might have had some health emergency they were trying to avert at that time, which no longer applies to modern day.

So, what we have now is people claiming their religion dictates their morals, so anyone not wishing to comply with civil laws and social rules can simply say "It's against my religion" and get exempted from following the current social rules and laws. Because of that, I don't think "moral laws" necessarily need to be addressed by religion, at least not too specifically.

That said, I'm a "minister" of the "the church of spiritual humanism" and got "ordained" by clicking a button online. I did so to legally perform marriages for non-religious folks who do not want monotheistic beliefs laced into their marriage.

In order to comply with the requirements of a "religion" according to various states, the "church" has a list of tenets, of which I've read and can basically believe in. I also can agree with many of the tenets of secular humanism, which is not considered a religion, for some state's definition, since it doesn't have a "spiritual" quality to it.

My own brand of "spiritual humanism" is very basic and those very basic human values is what I lace into the ceremonies I perform. (Commitment, devotion, honor, etc., which does NOT require any supernatural assistance, I stress that it is the couple's integrity and responsibility to do what's right for their marriage.)

It is a religion? Sure, for the purpose of the state. Is it something that I live by and and drives my life? Sure it's okay and just lives in the background of my mind. Is it the only way to live? While it's right for me, it's not so dogmatic that it directs participants to disrespect others with different beliefs.

Is it something that everyone can pretty much get on board with despite having more religious beliefs? Yes, I've never had a complaint, in fact I've been complimented on my humanistic style of service by former nuns and priests.

Is is not the new big religion or mythos that I feel someday could improve the outlook for today's world, but it's good enough for now to get by and I personally feel the world would be better if everyone traded in their supernatural religion for a more humanistic viewpoint, but as long as I'm happy, I don't care much about what others believe, unless they wish to impose it on me.

It doesn't take much explaining. Here are the "tenets" of the Church of Spiritual Humanism" with yes, some moral instruction, but not too specific, just very general. [spiritualhumanism.org]

@Julie808
The S.H. guidelines look very reasonable to me. As I mentioned earlier, I’m not recommending going back to any old religions, other than trying to accommodate those who are already in them, to the extent practical. Some of their specific morality looks plenty viable in the modern context to me: don’t lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc.

I’m totally in favor of keeping up with the times, for instance I would include evolutionary perspectives such as cautions against supernormal stimuli, antidotes to cognitive dissonance, etc., etc.

I have no idea how to make any system appealing to the whole world, but meanwhile, I favor universal tolerance and generic goodwill over tribalism and contention.

While I can’t personally believe in anything supernatural, I do understand how belief in an afterlife can provide hope for the downtrodden, and I’m not confident it’s wise to arrogantly snatch that away from them.

The thing I can’t unsee is the fact that the current major world religions are not, as so many modern atheists claim, just a bunch nonsense that some huckster made up to fleece the unwary. They are the products of tens of thousands of years of cultural evolution, which have played pivotal roles in our ability to maintain stable societies. We disregard them, I’m convinced, at our own peril.

@skado

Religious and spiritual evolution is coming slowly with baby steps. This is evidenced by the growing number of "nones" in our society.

My thought is that by introducing better ways of looking at life and our interactions with others, and even possibly introducing new metaphors through the arts to aid in support of the more harmonious outlook, change will come.

It won't come by adapting the old religions to new thought, but by showing a better path toward more peaceful interaction, and slowly people will come to "see the light" so to speak, and maybe straddle both ways of thought for a bit, maybe one foot in the old, and one foot in the new, until eventually they can see no other way, and the old ways seem silly.

The old religions will simply become a part of one's heritage and history, and mythology of the past. That is my hope.

@Julie808

I have a slightly different view here. I don't think the old religions are now, or will ever be entirely irrelevant beyond museum pieces or sentimental keepsakes. The history I'm aware of is that religions go until they fail at their core evolutionary purpose, at which point they are forced by circumstances to reform, but only as much as is necessary to revive them, and no more.

So a good deal of the old is kept, and some modified, and some discarded for the new. Part of why this is the case is that they were never just some creative person's rational handiwork, but more of a "living" social phenomenon that has been exposed to the evolutionary pressures of centuries of collective trial and error. So, since the basic human biological nature doesn't change much over, say, a few hundred thousand years, neither will their strategies for maintaining social cohesion and personal wholeness. Although cultural structures certainly can evolve much more rapidly than biology can, when needed. And admittedly, the rapidly advancing technology can modify human needs almost overnight.

I'm starting, late in life, to see more practically useful aspects of the old religions than I ever guessed was there. They still have a lot to offer modern humans when properly understood.

@skado Well I guess then my response is that if it takes that much effort for the old religions to be "properly understood" then they really aren't much use. Relegating them to the trash heap and teaching why they were wrong in creating a dogmatic tribalism is fine by me. We need something more bold than the slight modification of the backward beliefs. Sometimes the best way to turn someone's head is with something totally new and fresh, worth considering, rather than a lot of work. That's my opinion anyway.

You can polish a turd all you want, sprinkle it with honey too, and it's still a turd. I am of the mind that throwing it out and presenting something new and fresh is the way to go. That's just me.

@Julie808
As individuals, today anyway, we are free to choose, and that’s good. But these decisions aren’t really settled at the individual level. They really are determined by evolutionary processes. We are free to abandon old practices and invent new ones, but their viability will be subject to how well they serve reproductive fitness… at least, in the long run.

It is the common religious apologist misconception/lie of equating religion with morality and wisdom.

It hits the absolute lowest bottom as an argument, simply switching the labels morality and religion arround and hoping no one will notice, but it is so commonplace and taken for granted among apologists, that it is usually used mindlessly without consideration.

It is the common religious apologist misconception/lie of equating religion with morality and wisdom.

It hits the absolute lowest bottom as an argument, simply switching the labels morality and religion arround and hoping no one will notice, but it is so commonplace and taken for granted among apologists, that it is usually used mindlessly without consideration.

That would be you who needs the evidence. I have plenty, thanks.

@skado Don't deflect, you made the claim. Now proved evidence.

@xenoview
I didn’t see anything in the rule book that says I’m required to defend my claims.

I make statements to generate conversation. I’m not here to prove anything.

If you are interested we can have a conversation about it, and I may be able to share some sources of information that could be of interest to the open minded.

If you are not interested and open to unfamiliar ideas, no amount of “proof” would change your view. And I have no burning desire to change anyone’s mind. I’m as open to learning as I am to sharing what I know.

Let me know if you are interested in dialogue.

"I make statements to generate conversation. I’m not here to prove anything." Meaning, I am a troll who is so insecure and needy, I'll post the silliest bullshit to get the attention I crave. If anyone doesn't like it, that's great too because I crave drama too, and I'm all about hit-and-run.

Speaking of trolls, the same applies to TheMiddleWay. Both are vacuous maroons who seek meaningful discourse but are incapable. Pathetic and grim.

@racocn8 What is the difference between a troll and a trollop?
A. One is occasional useful, the other is a waste of space and oxygen.

@skado "I didn't see anything in the rule book.......defend my claims," possibly so in your case as, imo, the child upon whom you rely upon to do your reading and writing is still developing his/her attention spans, thus it is attention tends to wander frequently.
And also, imo, you do NOT have the Manhood and BALLS that it takes to actually defend or clarify any of your comments, etc, etc.

Moonshine is disgusting. I had a bottle once, bought in South Carolina, from a man who lived on a road that was named by 5 numerals.
It was a narrow dirt road going up a mountain. The more numerals, the narrower the road, the natives told me.
Now, to get to your subject: I have no religion. I have no god ( except Odin ) or spirituality. Odin did not believe in me, either. I have an unshakable sense of duty and obligation to my fellow beings and the environment we live in. I have joy when I do right.
That's it.

@Spinliesel Did it have three X’s on the side of the jug?

@p-nullifidian It was a bottle with a homemade label. It came highly recommended by my local friend. It was truly disgusting.