Can we live without religion?

[Danioover9000]

I suggest you watch with an open mind, and be aware and observe the arguers, the interviewees and interviewer's biases on display, and how they communicate:

   Obviously my position is mostly no, on the collective scale if we factor in other developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, we simply cannot skip over stage blue development. Stage blue is super important for the formation of country and nation identities, even theocracy is to some extent important for their development. Alex O'Connor here is simply biased and thinks he can philosophize and shoe horn in atheism as the cure for all, when it's mostly ideological dogma in it's worldviews and assertions of reality thinking it can conveniently skip over religion.

   Even egalitarianism, democracy, individualism, liberalism, secularism and atheism itself BORROWS FROM RELIGION! 

[Danioover9000]

   And also, worth considering is who Alex is as an ego, what his fears are, and his other developmental factors involved. I assume he's Irish due to his surname, so his from Ireland and has their culture. If he thinks he and a group in history can conveniently skip over stage blue, then Ireland wouldn't exist as it is. Ireland's culture exists now as a country and nation because largely due to the history of Viking raiders and tribes, which then developed into their own kingdoms, which then came into contact by the GB empire, and over time the historical conflicts resulted in the formation of what Ireland is, north and southern Ireland. Furthermore the religious conflicts between the catholic followers versus the protestant followers from GB. Is he just willing to re-write history and undermine Ireland's national and country identity like that, just because he has a gripe over religion, and just because he's too attached to atheism? 

[zazen]

The problem often is that religion loses its breath and essence when it dances with dogma. Its own followers inflict damage skeptics never could. Also, when people use the term religion what are they usually referring to exactly. Traditions and societal customs or practices are often conflated with religion which is of the spiritual domain, not of the operational domain of how a society should best function. They become like scaffolding built around the raw, pulsing truth of essential religion and become one and the same that when you critique tradition people take it as a attack on religion.

I guess for the awakened one, religion isn't just superstition, but eternal truth colorized through mythic story. They can discern whats literal to what may be metaphorically pointing to the transcendental. Historic descriptions of the past aren't taken as prescriptions for the future - records of history aren't always taken as road maps. That doesn't mean we can't extract timeless wisdom, but that societies can age out of certain practices and that tradition becomes a guide and not a jailer.

The predicament of the debate between the atheists vs the theists is that their both coming at the same reality from different vantage points yet think they are talking about different realities. Atheist materialists see existence as a clock, ticking without a clockmaker. Religious theists see the clockmaker in every tick and tock like a divine hand orchestrating everything.  Atheists can reduce God and existence to a mechanical self-sustaining machine whilst theists can personify God and existence. 

Both hold fragments of truth which is why discussions can be frustrating. Science questions the operations and how of existence whilst religion is a quest for the one operating behind existence- the one steering, infusing, and expressing itself through existence. 

 

Found this video interesting. From 14:07 speaks on why societies always seem to have a religious impulse however that may be manifest. 

Edited March 27 by zazen

[Razard86]

On 3/27/2024 at 0:42 PM, Danioover9000 said:

I suggest you watch with an open mind, and be aware and observe the arguers, the interviewees and interviewer's biases on display, and how they communicate:

   Obviously my position is mostly no, on the collective scale if we factor in other developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, we simply cannot skip over stage blue development. Stage blue is super important for the formation of country and nation identities, even theocracy is to some extent important for their development. Alex O'Connor here is simply biased and thinks he can philosophize and shoe horn in atheism as the cure for all, when it's mostly ideological dogma in it's worldviews and assertions of reality thinking it can conveniently skip over religion.

   Even egalitarianism, democracy, individualism, liberalism, secularism and atheism itself BORROWS FROM RELIGION! 

Atheism is a religion. It is belief based. The same flaws religion has atheism shares them too.

I have never met a non fearful, radically open minded atheist and I doubt I will.

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

5 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Atheism is a religion. It is belief based. The same flaws religion has atheism shares them too.

I have never met a non fearful, radically open minded atheist and I doubt I will.

   Sure, atheism is the same as religious dogma in structure, similar and different in content. Atheism is a belief in the non-belief of a god, and in the non-existence of an after life or multiple after lives.

[Danioover9000]

@zazen

On 2024-03-27 at 9:21 PM, zazen said:

The problem often is that religion loses its breath and essence when it dances with dogma. Its own followers inflict damage skeptics never could. Also, when people use the term religion what are they usually referring to exactly. Traditions and societal customs or practices are often conflated with religion which is of the spiritual domain, not of the operational domain of how a society should best function. They become like scaffolding built around the raw, pulsing truth of essential religion and become one and the same that when you critique tradition people take it as a attack on religion.

I guess for the awakened one, religion isn't just superstition, but eternal truth colorized through mythic story. They can discern whats literal to what may be metaphorically pointing to the transcendental. Historic descriptions of the past aren't taken as prescriptions for the future - records of history aren't always taken as road maps. That doesn't mean we can't extract timeless wisdom, but that societies can age out of certain practices and that tradition becomes a guide and not a jailer.

The predicament of the debate between the atheists vs the theists is that their both coming at the same reality from different vantage points yet think they are talking about different realities. Atheist materialists see existence as a clock, ticking without a clockmaker. Religious theists see the clockmaker in every tick and tock like a divine hand orchestrating everything.  Atheists can reduce God and existence to a mechanical self-sustaining machine whilst theists can personify God and existence. 

Both hold fragments of truth which is why discussions can be frustrating. Science questions the operations and how of existence whilst religion is a quest for the one operating behind existence- the one steering, infusing, and expressing itself through existence. 

 

Found this video interesting. From 14:07 speaks on why societies always seem to have a religious impulse however that may be manifest. 

   In most cases, atheists when talking about religion refer to the straw man versions like it's a cult ideology, fundamentalist religious nut cases, dogmatic bible thumpers. Most will go into those straw man fields first, and some to a few atheists will honestly go into the traditional and social cultural customs or practices as it's referred to properly.

   I only have a specific gripe with Alex O'Connor's philosophizing of religion. If true that we can skip over religion, one implication is the total conquest of Ireland because in history the majority of conflict between the 2 cultures were religious, what allowed this divide between south and north Ireland in the first place. Without the Protestantism  and Catholicism religious denomination, most of Ireland would be assimilated into GB. 

[Nemra]

If atheism is a religion, then it's way more open-minded and honest than others. So what if they don't talk in spiritual language?

Atheists are correct when they say god doesn't exist. 

Edited March 30 by Nemra

[Danioover9000]

@Nemra

19 minutes ago, Nemra said:

If atheism is a religion, then it's way more open-minded and honest than others. So what if they don't talk in spiritual language?

Atheists are correct when they say god doesn't exist. 

   The main issues are your presuppositions here that if atheism is a religion, then it's way more honest and open minded than others. If put in standard form:

Atheism is a religion.

Religion is more open minded and honest than 'others'(undefined term to other ideologies)

Therefore, Atheism is more open minded and honest.

Several problems with the premises and conclusion, first is assuming each premise is valid and strong. It's not because when both religion and atheism are defined, there are clear differences in practices and followers, and almost opposite beliefs in a god, one beliefs in god's existence, the other believes in a non-god existence. Another problem is the undefined qualifiers of honest and open minded to religion, and even to atheism. What does it mean for an atheist or theist to be honest and open minded, and what if you encounter a scammer, con artist, hustler, swindler, grifter, fraudster who pretends to be atheist or theist and lies?

   The next problem is your question: So what if they don't talk in spiritual language? Again, you project a premise in there that's not previously present in argument that both atheists or theists have, this 'spiritual language' you're asserting here. Then this leads into the biggest assumption you've made: claiming atheists are correct in their position when they say god doesn't exist.

   We then move into the next area of problems your post leads into: ethical and moral frameworks for a societal custom and practice. Who get's to decide the standards of livelihood? How do we know which morality and belief system we live by? This is covered pretty well in this videos below:

 

 

 

[Nemra]

@Danioover9000 

Sorry, atheism as a religion is way more open-minded and honest about their understanding of reality. Atheists or Atheistic people are more inclusive and recognize the relativity of life than other religions. This is not complicated.

The proof that the god that religions preach is a fantasy is by not being in a religion or, ironically, not believing in their god.

And not believing in a god (which means any god) and believing in it (which is specific because each religion has its own) are different beliefs.

[Danioover9000]

@Nemra

Just now, Nemra said:

@Danioover9000 

Sorry, atheism as a religion is way more open-minded and honest about their understanding of reality. Atheists or Atheistic people are more inclusive and recognize the relativity of life than other religions. This is not complicated.

The proof that the god that religions preach is a fantasy is by not being in a religion or, ironically, not believing in their god.

And not believing in a god (which means any god) and believing in it (which is specific because each religion has its own) are different beliefs.

   No, the main issue is that atheists claim there's no god, no divinity, yet that claim is largely not backed up by proof, or facts to corroborate such claims of a metaphysical reality minus god. Saying, writing, thinking there's no god is still a belief in a lack of god and that there's no god, which is still a belief. Just because there's a lack of god /=/ no god. Lack of evidence /=/ evidence of lack, it's instead lack of evidence = lack of evidence.

   Also, it's a categorical error to assume that atheism is a religion, when it's just an ideology that assumes too much of reality with very little to no evidence. And if atheists are so open minded and honest, where are the open minded and honest atheists when they're around other religious followers? Most atheists are close minded and dogmatic against other religious ideas and even political ideas.

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

the main issue is that atheists claim there's no god, no divinity, yet that claim is largely not backed up by proof, or facts to corroborate such claims of a metaphysical reality minus god. Saying, writing, thinking there's no god is still a belief in a lack of god and that there's no god, which is still a belief. Just because there's a lack of god /=/ no god. Lack of evidence /=/ evidence of lack, it's instead lack of evidence = lack of evidence

I said it's a belief, but of a different kind. As if religious people care about proof. They suck up what they have been told about reality and don't care about evidence more than atheists.

[Danioover9000]

@Nemra

Just now, Nemra said:

I said it's a belief, but of a different kind. As if religious people care about proof. They suck up what they have been told about reality and don't care about evidence more than atheists.

   So how does claiming it's a belief of a different kind support your assertion here:

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

If atheism is a religion, then it's way more open-minded and honest than others. So what if they don't talk in spiritual language?

Atheists are correct when they say god doesn't exist. 

   If true that religious people don't care about proof, suck up what they have been told of reality and don't care care about evidence more than atheists, why do churches, monasteries, synagogues, temples, contain holy books, holy scriptures, Sanskrit for the Hinduisms and Buddhists to read? Why do Muslims have proof and evidence recorded in the Quran and care about it? Why do Christians have the Holy Bible, the gospels and churches for mass worship and care about these practices? Why do the Jews and Kabbalists also use the Torah and care about the passages? Is this not contradictory to your original assertion that religious folks don't care at all about proof?

   Also, why is there a huge lack in evidence, in scripture, in gospels of atheism? Where is the atheist's scriptures, temples and bibles about a non-god and no afterlife? Where is their place of worship of a non god and nothing after you die? It's almost as if atheists don't care even about their atheism and just suck up whatever nonsense atheists tell them...and sometimes in life and death situations atheists pray to something, as if they believe in something...🤔

[Schizophonia]

Yes

[Danioover9000]

@Schizophonia

36 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes

No.

[Schizophonia]

15 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Schizophonia

No.

Ok.

Well, i choose Odinism 

Edited March 30 by Schizophonia

[Danioover9000]

@Schizophonia

1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

Ok.

Well, i choose Odinism 

Fine. I choose Onission.

[Schizophonia]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Schizophonia

Fine. I choose Onission.

Are you Christian ? 

[Danioover9000]

   I don't like Ben Shapiro and I can get petty, but he definitely was challenging Alex O'Connor, fake AF philosopher grifter. Like this guy was arguing t destroy the monarchy, yet overlooks the hyper inflation it'll cause if you destroy and liquidate all that juicy wealth and riches from the royalty. Oh, and he also doesn't mind all of Ireland getting conquered by GB because he hates religion that much, good job cornball:

 

[Nemra]

16 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

If true that religious people don't care about proof, suck up what they have been told of reality and don't care care about evidence more than atheists, why do churches, monasteries, synagogues, temples, contain holy books, holy scriptures, Sanskrit for the Hinduisms and Buddhists to read? Why do Muslims have proof and evidence recorded in the Quran and care about it? Why do Christians have the Holy Bible, the gospels and churches for mass worship and care about these practices? Why do the Jews and Kabbalists also use the Torah and care about the passages? Is this not contradictory to your original assertion that religious folks don't care at all about proof?

You proved my point. They are lost in narrow interpretations of reality. They don't question themselves, and they make their beliefs stronger by using those methods. Why should you care about reading scriptures at all? That doesn't compute in the minds of religious people. Their lifestyles dictate their reality, and they believe that it is absolute. Having a mystical experience or something else doesn't matter here. They always have crude interpretations, which they are unaware of. They believe that reality is given and have nothing to add, which is ironic.

Edited March 31 by Nemra

[Danioover9000]

@Nemra

2 hours ago, Nemra said:

You proved my point. They are lost in narrow interpretations of reality. They don't question themselves, and they make their beliefs stronger by using those methods. Why should you care about reading scriptures at all? That doesn't compute in the minds of religious people. Their lifestyles dictate their reality, and they believe that it is absolute. Having a mystical experience or something else doesn't matter here. They always have crude interpretations, which they are unaware of. They believe that reality is given and have nothing to add, which is ironic.

   No, I'm pointing out your performative contradiction here. You claimed religious folks don't care, yet they care a lot about the religion they follow, for places of worships to holy scriptures and books, to sermons, yet most atheists copy what religious folks do and app their behaviors and ways of life. Also atheists and atheism itself mostly borrows it's moral foundations from religion, science and other fields, and has the gale to accuse religious folks for not caring when they don't care about their own lives or their own reality causing more negative states and depression even in most atheist followers?