If you found happiness through religion, good for you. Everyone has their own ways.
The problem starts when you think happiness can only come from religion.
If you found happiness through religion, good for you. Everyone has their own ways.
The problem starts when you think happiness can only come from religion.
It sucks to be a widow or widower looking for support groups to help you cope with the death of your spouse, and the only available groups are at churches who then turn the group into a mini church sermon. These churches should not have tax free status when they won't even offer the most basic help for communities without trying to convert vulnerable people to their cult.
Not saying I disagree, but as someone who was once religious I'd say that in their minds it is exactly the point to serve the desperate and broken hearted. "It is the sick who need a doctor, not the well." They genuinely believe they are helping by doing this, not trying to be deceptive.
In fairness, in the prominent religions "everyone* is sick and needs the doctor
I think you’re wrong about that last part. They are absolutely deceptive.
That doesn't change that most of them actually believe they're helping. They've been pretty well groomed to believe that.
Probably depends on location and culture as well. Where I live there's a decent amount of moderate people. And well, they probably internalized the negative aspects. But it's not like they'll go out and molest other people with their religious stuff. So I'd say as long as they're accepting of dissent, gay people, facts... Which many of them are... They're more part of something that's deceptive from grounds up, rather than (deliberately) being deceptive themselves. And they don't follow the rules literally (same with the moderates amongst the Muslim people here). Leading me to believe they have some grasp of what's right and what's wrong beyond what's written in an old book.
Of course none of this applies to the fundamentalists, or the nasty evangelical people prevalent in some other countries. And religion always has deceit baked in, that's a fact 🤗 We'd call it science or ethics or history if it was based on something else.
Nah it's you'll all burn in hell if you don't accept Odin, so everyone is "sick" in your metaphor.
Odin? I meant Ganesha. Or was it Zeus?
I'm a devout atheist, but Ganesh I'd smoke a joint with.
Not all religions have a concept of hell, nor eternal punishment for sins. That's a very Judeo-Christian-Islamic view.
I mean... yes, but this is kinda true for everything. Most people don't change their worldview/religion/political ideology etc. when they're happy and everything goes well. Most people also don't start their own business, move countries or leave their spouse if they're entirely happy with how things have been going.
To put it in system dynamics terms, in order for a system to settle on a new attractor state, there first needs to be enough instability to spur change. So the mechanism you're describing isn't unique to religion.
Don't know if religion is the best predator but it sure does have a lot of them.
Most people "find god" when they're children, they're going to church with their family/friends, they're participating in social activities under the auspices of the church, and they're nibbling away at the propaganda of the institution. Conversions are the exception, not the rule, and are far more commonly a consequence of interfaith marriage than some personal trauma.
I would argue that people "lose god" when they're unhappy more often than they find one. Discovering that you're not the ideal religious worshiper - you're selfish, you're angry, you're horny, you're heretical, you're not merely satisfied to exist as a little disposable worker bee in the business hive that keeps the church coffers well-funded - is alienating and disorienting. Discovering that church officials don't have satisfying answers to life's harder questions is frustrating and tense.
Big institutional churches feed on normalcy and prosperity. They do best when their congregants are looking for a certain baseline validation in their own virtue, not when they're defeated or transitioning or questioning their social norms. Downturns don't send people to the pews, unless the pews offer something that newly impoverished people need.
There are church missions that fill this role in some instances. But - by and large - the church exists as an amenity for the wealthy and privileged, not the poor and disempowered.
When people are at their lowest, they seek something to fill the void
When I was at my lowest, I went to my church looking for relief and I got back empty platitudes and a mysticism that didn't hold up under the slightest pressure. I became significantly less religious and more agnostic, as I started looking outside the church for better answers.
Things might have been different if I'd been in a more Evangelical Church with a savvier group of ministers. Or if I'd been in a family that was more well-connected with the church's philanthropic organs. But the depression, the fear, and the indignation I felt at my lowest propelled me away from a church full of pleasant-seeming do-nothing gospel singers.
Made me think of "there are no atheists in foxholes". To which my response is, so religious people are only religous because they fear for thier life? That sounds healthy.
“Religion invents a problem—namely sin—throws a poison into you, and then offers you the cure.” - Hitchens
Yes and no. Sin is particular to Christianity. Not all religions conceive of sin as the main problem, nor salvation as the way to solve it.
Good book on this is 'God is Not One' by Stephen Prothero.
For instance, you could say Buddhism's problem is suffering. But that's not something it imposes on you; that's something inherent to the human condition, more or less. It offers a solution to that, but you can't exactly compare apples to oranges.
Why is this downvoted? Even on an atheist site, there is still plenty of cultural bias and assumptions. Like, the debate on whether god or not exists, why does the inherent premise assume there is only one god? Why does the debate never mention gods? Oh I know, because the monotheistic Abrahamic religion came to dominate the world. And so, the narrative and viewpoint on the debate became monotheistic, which throws the polytheistic viewpoint under the rug and pretend it does not exists.
Most of my life has been shit and never once did i think to believe in "God" and i am from a very religious family, my mother stopped with that bs years ago but my grandmothers were most of their lives in church praying and all that bs and yet they were abused, beaten and treated like trash by my grandfathers to their last day... not to mention all the crap people have done and still do in the name of one god or another and all this time all this god has done is finger it's asshole and do fuck all and if we were created in it's image then it just enjoys the misery we have and i could type more but i have already wasted enough time as it is...
Maybe God really does exist, he's just a person that likes to pray on the emotionally vulnerable.
This is why I resisted AA/NA for so long. It seemed like an attempt to convert people when they were at their lowest, rock bottom.
And it may have started that way, but today there are variations. My home group was full of angry atheists and agnostics. We spent a LOT of time trashing religion and the spiritual abuse we suffered as young people.
That's where I learned that we are all gods. Anyone who creates is god. I started praying to myself and actually still do occasionally. Since I'm the one in control of my own destiny, why shouldn't I? It's odd but it actually works, it's like telling your subconscious what to do, which makes things easier for your conscious self.
I'm def not a god, it just takes time for your body to break down, for your mind to turn to dust, then you WILL feel it. You will understand what it is like to be limited, to see your entire future ahead of you.
Just pick whoever/whatever you want, I like that elephant-headed God for example. He makes me happy (Ganesh). He doesn't need blood or anything, he's so crazy
It doesn't matter, none of this matters
Desperate people go looking for god after they've fucked up their lives so badly they need something--ANYTHING--before they end up dead.
"Well, fuck it, mom said I should try religion, so..."
Then they get back to something resembling normal, and attribute it to "GOD IS GREAT!", and suddenly, they're yakking at you like they're a linux user vegan on crossfit. Or, a born-again Christian.
Many of us never fucked our lives up to begin with, so don't have any use for religion. For those whom it has worked, great. Good for you. But, don't assume everyone needs it.
Which is also why the religious right is more prominent than the religious left. The latter are individuals whose faith tells them to serve others, the former are organisations calculating how to gain more power.
thats why schizophrenics fall into it, and right wing looneys who had braind damage from strokes: sorbo, cavazial, dean cain, maybe cameron.
Oh the other hand, you can be at your lowest, then have a dream about being Yahweh's 2nd son¹, invent your own religion, and act as a prophet for God, recruit a bunch of cultists ahem I mean followers, and rebel against the monarchy.
¹But isn't Jesus supposed to be God? But then Yahweh is also God? Is Jesus his own father? What the fuck xD
Huh? Why not?
There's so many memes of basketball players thanking god for their good shots and such
The privileged have everything, while the destitute only have "god".
It seems like a strange thing to lose or find.
I lost God finally when my aunt died. It was my last bit of faith. I had one last conversation with god before I finally understood.
How many of y'all became atheists through happiness?
If you mean I became happier once I stopped the religious based self loathing, then I count.
If you mean it was happy times so I switched to atheism, I guess one of the main things that helped me realize some bullshit was watching Futurama, one of my favorite shows, so that could probably be considered happy too?
Which episode of Futurama was it? Godfellas?
It was A Clockwork Origin. Despite being religious at the time I was always into science, but I stuck more to space, physics, chemical stuff and bought into some of the claims that used how supposedly little chance Earth could be so perfect for life. Like an uncomfortable subject, I kinda avoided evolution, but I did know one of the apologetics the religion used was the missing link argument.
Seeing the mockery of the moving goalposts kinda hit me like the first guy in https://youtu.be/Esl_wOQDUeE
We really be doing that?
One of the scriptures that was a big influence on me at the time was "Always be ready to defend the faith" but this was one of the first bricks that I could no longer defend, and more came after.
On AtheistMemes - shows a pic that's not a meme, it's just a person saying something...
Typical
Not our fault you don't know what a meme is.
Meme has multiple meanings, but in the sense most commonly used in the internet it is "funny piece of media that spreads from place to place in a way that is hard/impossible to track the spread"
This ain't funny. It's just a statement.
Yes I'm aware of the other meanings. This ain't what this community is used for though
For once, it would be interesting to see an atheistic opinion include theism instead of just the usual bullshit from the twelve tribes of Judah.
There's many religions and philosophies that discuss their misuse, being only when in times of struggle. There are many religions that dgaf if you follow them or not and are definitely not predatory.
But as usual, the online atheist only knows of one theism when talking about "all religion"; Christianity.
Be the change you want to see in the world. Unless you just want people not to talk about what they're most familiar with for aome reason.
Oh, for sure. But as an atheist, I don't tarnish the idea by being narrow-minded and exclusively anti-Abrahamic.
I'm of the opinion that you can't be atheistic without first knowing theism. Knowing just one of them is a start.
Wild. I don't think there is a pre-requisite knowledge to be an atheist. All babies are born atheists. Religion is learned later.
No, they are not. To be an atheist, you must have first heard about and understood the concept of gods, thus being then able to form the ism (idea) that you are without them.
No ism can be born into as they are not states of being, they are ideas, concepts, opinions, etc. States of being end with -ic.
I don't see the point of this distinction. When I say "an atheist" i mean only and exactly a person who does not believe any gods exist.
Yeah, and that's correct for you. However a newborn doesn't know what gods are, so they're unable to adhere to a belief, opinion, idea, concept, etc (Isms) in whether gods exist or not. It is not that they don't believe gods exist, it's that they are unable to believe or disbelieve, since they don't know what gods are yet.
Do you often find it useful to talk about "people who do not believe in gods but are aware of the concept" while explicitly excluding "people who do not believe in gods and are not aware of the concept"? That seems like such a rare distinction to need to make.
It's the literal opposite of rare. It would be rare if people were born preloaded with all the knowledge of previous generations. As far as I know 100% of people are born without knowledge of deity concepts and therefore must be taught it in order to align with theism, monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or autohteism—yeah, there's more, but that covers the main ones of gods, singular, many, none, and self.
I think this discussion is using philosophy, ironically, to disguise failures in literacy.
Hey bud. Reread my comment. I said it was a rare distinction to need to make. I've actually asked you in two different comments now why you feel the distinction is useful, which is the crux of our disagreement, with no response.
3 comments if you count this one.
It's clear, though. The distinction is atheism or not. By understanding what an ism fundamentally is, you're able to distinguish what it is not. Someone cannot adhere to an ism based on a thing without knowing what the thing is first.
It's a distinction of 1 or 0.
I had assumed this was clear enough response to your questioning.
And it's not a disagreement, really. This isn't an opinion of mine, it's one of the cruxes of the English/Latin language. It is the reason the -ism suffix exists. Your statement is simply incompatible with what any word ending with -ism is. A newborn cannot be any of them.
No, once again restating the distinction you are making does not explain the value of making the distinction.
The phrase "adhere to an ism" is absolutely meaningless in the context of atheism. It feels like pedantic word games.
Atheism isn't a single word exceptional of the rest of English. You have a misunderstanding. Whether you improve on it or not is dependent on your ego, however an entire established d language will not change itself to suit a your opinion.
The term you're likely thinking of is 'non-theistic'. That is a state of being without deities; thoughts, being, existential state. I recommend you do some quick reading into morphemes, specifically -ic, -ism, -ist. You will confuse people less—especially multilingualists that have English as a second lamguage—and not make impossible statements like 'newborns are atheists'.
I'm just trying to help.
Bud I'm using the literal dictionary definition here. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but sometimes words in English are used differently than their etymology or structure might suggest.
And you notably, again, refuse to answer the question.
You're not.
Please show a dictionary definition that a newborn can adhere to. They all speak of disbelief, belief, or ideology. These are phases no being is able to be without first having an understanding of the thing they are disbelieving, believing, or adhering to. This is the literal point of an ism. This is why words end with ism.
As for your question, it has been answered. I'm starting to think you simply have a misunderstanding you are not willing to adjust due to pride. Please point out how the question has not been answered and I will do my best, though, this is clearly a huge waste of time for both of us and I won't participate much longer if there is no benefit for either of us.
You've said it.... disbelief. not believing. Infants do not believe in any gods, so they lack belief in gods. By definition.
My man, if the insults and digs were going to work they would have worked a long time ago. The question is clear, and has been repeated ad nauseum. I was willing to listen, but you were not willing to respond, so forget it. Either you can tell me what you don't understand about my question, or you can leave.
Disbelief is a form of belief. On the spectrum of faith, it is refusal of the thing.
Choosing to not believe in something is disbelief. Not believing in something choicelessly is not.
How could a child express disbelief in something they have no knowledge of? They cannot believe or disbelieve in it. They don't know what it is. The spectrum is non-existent for them, literally. They cannot align themselves on whether something is true/real or not because they don't know what the thing is yet. They cannot be an ist in ANYTHING without knowing what the prefixing topic of the ism is.
There are no insults, so that's affirming news to me on your position. Thanks for calling me a man. Good luck with your interpretation of English and ideologies, but don't expect the world to change for you any time soon.
Disbelief is explicitly not a belief. it is a lack of belief.
And children absolutely can and do believe or lack belief in things. famously santa claus as an example.
You have repeatedly told me that I have failed in literacy, my grasp of english and reigning in my ego. You are a bully and a liar.
Something helps people cope with tragedies of life.
"What a predator!"
Yeah, like how medical professionals enrich themselves from the ill. Vermin!
Amazes me what counts as profound comments here.
top 78 comments