Syntheistic philosophy

[PyramidHead]

he he.. well. I have to admit that I mostly agree with you. The book is unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. He makes a hell of a lot more sense when I talk to him in person. But he's writing for an audience of philosophers who expect to read philosophy in a certain form. Continental philosophers like their philosophy convoluted, obscurantist and dense as fuck. That's just a sad fact. But it's a style choice. Rather than evidence of shallowness. A lot of them do have plenty of sensible things to say IMHO. It's a stylistic tradition I find extremely annoying and unhelpful. I'm used to reading philosophy, so I can read it just fine. But I too would prefer it if they made an effort to make it easier to digest.

I have a degree in philosophy: if not for my experience, I may have been swooned by what is on that page. It's not just the ease of digestibility or the style; he is saying things that fly in the face of what you said earlier in the thread, that Syntheism isn't about a search for truth. It seems clear to me that the author of those paragraphs believes himself to be in possession of a Truth that allows him to make grand pronouncements about every topic under the sun. From science to mathematics (at one point suggesting that the mathematical requirement for symmetry is related to sexual libido) to politics, nihilism, economics, everything is reduced to the terms he has set out in his head. Seriously, if these are the ideas that form the basis of Syntheism, get the hell out and find another way to scratch your spiritual itch is my advice to you. You don't need to defend these clowns or legitimize any -ism they invent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

he he.. well. I have to admit that I mostly agree with you. The book is unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. He makes a hell of a lot more sense when I talk to him in person. But he's writing for an audience of philosophers who expect to read philosophy in a certain form. Continental philosophers like their philosophy convoluted, obscurantist and dense as fuck. That's just a sad fact. But it's a style choice. Rather than evidence of shallowness. A lot of them do have plenty of sensible things to say IMHO. It's a stylistic tradition I find extremely annoying and unhelpful. I'm used to reading philosophy, so I can read it just fine. But I too would prefer it if they made an effort to make it easier to digest.

I have a degree in philosophy: if not for my experience, I may have been swooned by what is on that page. It's not just the ease of digestibility or the style; he is saying things that fly in the face of what you said earlier in the thread, that Syntheism isn't about a search for truth. It seems clear to me that the author of those paragraphs believes himself to be in possession of a Truth that allows him to make grand pronouncements about every topic under the sun. From science to mathematics (at one point suggesting that the mathematical requirement for symmetry is related to sexual libido) to politics, nihilism, economics, everything is reduced to the terms he has set out in his head. Seriously, if these are the ideas that form the basis of Syntheism, get the hell out and find another way to scratch your spiritual itch is my advice to you. You don't need to defend these clowns or legitimize any -ism they invent.

You've misunderstood fundamentally what Syntheism is. Alexander Bard's philosophy and exploration of what Syntheism means to him is exactly that. It's just him and his thoughts. It's not required reading. You don't even need to agree. You can disagree and still be just as good a Syntheist. All articles on Syntheism.org are personal. It's about each authors own personal journey.

The point with Syntheism is the community, the shared rituals. But we can fill it with what the fuck we want. The atheistic insight is that God has no substance. The atheist has realized that God is simply an empty canvas onto which the believer projects whatever the believer wants or needs. What sets Syntheists apart from other atheists is that we've realized that gods can actually be a useful mental tool. Projecting our inner thoughts and desires onto an empty canvas is an excellent way to learn about ourselves.

But I'm not going to sell this too hard. If I had heard of Syntheism ten years ago I would have thought they (we) were idiots. My needs are different now than what they were ten years ago.

 

[PyramidHead]

I have a degree in philosophy: if not for my experience, I may have been swooned by what is on that page. It's not just the ease of digestibility or the style; he is saying things that fly in the face of what you said earlier in the thread, that Syntheism isn't about a search for truth. It seems clear to me that the author of those paragraphs believes himself to be in possession of a Truth that allows him to make grand pronouncements about every topic under the sun. From science to mathematics (at one point suggesting that the mathematical requirement for symmetry is related to sexual libido) to politics, nihilism, economics, everything is reduced to the terms he has set out in his head. Seriously, if these are the ideas that form the basis of Syntheism, get the hell out and find another way to scratch your spiritual itch is my advice to you. You don't need to defend these clowns or legitimize any -ism they invent.

You've misunderstood fundamentally what Syntheism is. Alexander Bard's philosophy and exploration of what Syntheism means to him is exactly that. It's just him and his thoughts. It's not required reading. You don't even need to agree. You can disagree and still be just as good a Syntheist. All articles on Syntheism.org are personal. It's about each authors own personal journey.

That sounds like damage control. The fact is that the book is called Syntheism and it says what Syntheism is, not just for the author, but for everybody. You are suggesting we think of Hubbard as just a guy with his own personal thoughts about what Scientology means to him, and by-the-way here is a link to his entire book and what do you think of it, but don't presume it has anything to do with Scientology, because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding.

The point with Syntheism is the community, the shared rituals. But we can fill it with what the fuck we want. The atheistic insight is that God has no substance. The atheist has realized that God is simply an empty canvas onto which the believer projects whatever the believer wants or needs. What sets Syntheists apart from other atheists is that we've realized that gods can actually be a useful mental tool. Projecting our inner thoughts and desires onto an empty canvas is an excellent way to learn about ourselves.

But by your own admission, there seems to be nothing about the concept of gods in particular that sets them apart from other exercises in self-deception. You told Dystopian (and did not correct me when I observed) that the way you approach gods and the rituals that surround them is exactly the same as going to the movies, reading a novel, or even playing a video game with a decent story. Presumably, many atheists do these things. But when they get together and talk about it, they don't think of it as a religious gathering, and instead of saying "we are projecting our intersubjective vision into the future" they say "cool we have the same taste in horror films." If there is a way that pretending god is real in a religious ceremony is a better way to learn about ourselves than pretending Moriarty and Holmes are real for the purposes of this week's episode of Sherlock, what is it? I think I know: when it's just Moriarty and Holmes, you don't get to use New Age terminology, you don't get to have a write-up in Vice, and you don't get to say you know what religion is all about across history without doing the research. That's why stuff like this ruffles my feathers so much... it's nothing at all when you peel away the layers, but it cynically (or innocently, I can't be sure) appropriates existing buzzwords to get people's attention, while being just slippery enough to maintain a veneer of humility when pressed.

 

[dystopian]

I'm not sure how to respond to this, since it isn't a question. It's an assertion. So... good luck with that.

It's an assertion in the same sense that saying rain is wet is an assertion. Yes, it's an assertion, but it's also self-evidently true. You start by admitting that you made the concepts up, and next you say 'but it doesn't matter that I made it up, I'm still doing the whole worship and ritual thing even though I don't believe it, because I get some sort of personal benefit from it.'

How is that not the very *definition* of pretending?

"I believe that following those lines of thought can make us unearth a sort of metabelief, or a "supreme fiction" to use Simon Critchley's concept. A fiction that we know to be a fiction but that we can believe in nonetheless, because of its real implications and effects. In a way that's a definition of Syntheos. An intersubjective projection on the future which materializes, in part or in full, just like other ideas and visions do."

A fine bit of prattle that just doesn't work. You can't actually 'believe' in a something you *know* to be fiction. Those are two mutually exclusive positions. You can't believe something you know isn't true. You can pretend you believe it, but you can't actually *believe* it.

It's also prattle on account of the claim that we can believe in the fiction because it has 'real implications and effects'; which is predicated on one's inability to separate correlation and cause. Just because christians sometimes feel good when they pray to god, *doesn't* mean that that is the actual mechanism that's making them feel good and that you can just strip away the belief component as an atheist and replace it with something you made up to get the same effect. It's not the fiction or the rituals themselves that make them feel good. It's kind of like suggesting that you can get the same feeling a cocaine addict experiences byjust replace the cocaine with flour because 'obviously' the thing that's making them feel good is the snorting a white powder part, instead of the specific neurochemical interactions caused by snorting cocaine.

No it isn't. It is EXACTLY the same thing. No different. I think your problem here is that you're using an absolutely idiotic example of theism to compare with. And you're completely blind to the fact that there may be other ways of being theistic. Well.. good for you. But you're not likely to convince me of anything with that attitude.

No, it really isn't the same. Not even close. I'm not even sure how one could equate the two after thinking about it for more than two seconds. When you suspend your disbelief for an hour so you can enjoy star wars, does that mean that during that hour you ACTUALLY think there's a deathstar out there in a galaxy far far away? Or does it just mean you're not constantly going "THERE'S NO FUCKING SOUND IN SPACE YOU MORONS"? Suspending your disbelief in order to be entertained by a movie for a bit doesn't take any particular effort. What you're proposing *does* take effort and isn't done for the sole purpose of wasting an afternoon with a little light entertainment. Also rather than just suspending your disbelief which is an inherently passive thing to do, it requires you to *actively* imagine/act as if something is true.

Even if it were true that the two things are exactly the same though, it would be a horrible argument for you to use because it would immediately make me go; "Okay, so basically syntheism is the equivalent of me shutting down the parts of my brain that keep telling me 'that's not how that works and why the fuck are you watching an Adam Sandler movie don't you remember he is a horribly annoying twat?".

Also, I'm actually comparing syntheism with all forms of theism and not specifically christianity. It's just that all forms of theism are essentially idiotic to begin with. It would make absolutely no difference to my position if I or you were to replace the comparison to Christians with Buddhists or any other group of theists. Same basic problems apply.

I don't get a warm tingly feeling feeling from my invented divinities. I want gods that inspire me to do shit. Not turn me passive. It's basically just a tool for conditioning my own brain. This is no different than learning anything. We've all got our foibles and unwanted behaviours and quirks. We've all got stuff to work on. Ritualising the conditioning is a perfect way not to forget it. It's really quite simple. And it works. At least it works for me.

Again, why exactly do you need these invented divinities? You could replace these invented divinities with anything at all. In fact, you don't even need invented *anything* in order to get inspired or condition yourself to do certain things or think in certain ways. You don't need to add all the faux-religious baggage. Why on Earth do you need to invent a fake religion to do any of this? Why not just do it? You're adding all sorts of nonsense to something that just doesn't need it; and in the process you're taking a big step back.

Theists and atheists do and feel all the same things; it's just that the theist adds a bunch of unnecessary steps in between that they believe are absolutely essential. An atheist has cut that superfluous nonsense from his life and realizes that the steps based on superstitious beliefs aren't needed to get the same result. You're putting those steps back, which is worse because you don't even believe they're essential the way the theist does. It's one step forward, two steps back.

Ok, fine. Nice that you can relate. I can't.

So you've been on this forum for years, reading all these posts from Americans and people from other overtly religious countries explaining what life is like over there and how religion impacts them... but you lack any and all ability to relate to what they're saying because Swedish people apparently agree with each other all the time or never use annoying empty catchphrases, "gotcha!"'s, and outright falsehoods when confronting the people they don't agree with. That's what it sounds like you're saying, because I honestly can not see how a human being could otherwise fail to relate to this annoyance.

 

[dystopian]

That sounds like damage control. The fact is that the book is called Syntheism and it says what Syntheism is, not just for the author, but for everybody. You are suggesting we think of Hubbard as just a guy with his own personal thoughts about what Scientology means to him, and by-the-way here is a link to his entire book and what do you think of it, but don't presume it has anything to do with Scientology, because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding.

I agree, it very much reads like the basis of a cult. Now, I'm willing to accept Zoidberg's claim that anyone is free to disagree and that you'd still be a good syntheist and that it probably isn't a cult in any classic sense. Fine, let's ignore the potential pitfalls with the way that the words of an organization or movement's founder tend to coalesce over time into an established doctrine, and let's just go with the idea that it's basically about your own personal journey and what not. Doesn't that just mean the whole thing is completely undefined and meaningless? it seems a bit useless to join a philosophical movement whose central tenet is claimed to be "Just find your own way man, whatever." What point is there to being part of a movement where that is the only real binding factor? Kind of reminds me of those incredibly vague self-help gurus who can talk for three hours straight and electrify a crowd without saying anything more substantial than "Hi my name is [x] and I'm here to talk to you about [y]"

 

[PyramidHead]

No it isn't. It is EXACTLY the same thing. No different. I think your problem here is that you're using an absolutely idiotic example of theism to compare with. And you're completely blind to the fact that there may be other ways of being theistic. Well.. good for you. But you're not likely to convince me of anything with that attitude.

No, it really isn't the same. Not even close. I'm not even sure how one could equate the two after thinking about it for more than two seconds. When you suspend your disbelief for an hour so you can enjoy star wars, does that mean that during that hour you ACTUALLY think there's a deathstar out there in a galaxy far far away? Or does it just mean you're not constantly going "THERE'S NO FUCKING SOUND IN SPACE YOU MORONS"? Suspending your disbelief in order to be entertained by a movie for a bit doesn't take any particular effort. What you're proposing *does* take effort and isn't done for the sole purpose of wasting an afternoon with a little light entertainment. Also rather than just suspending your disbelief which is an inherently passive thing to do, it requires you to *actively* imagine/act as if something is true.

To be fair to DrZoidberg, I think he isn't far off the mark when he compares "giving in" to a movie's logic or the premise of a novel to "giving in" to the energy of, say, gospel music. I can't deny that gospel music has a certain infectious quality, and if I listen to it as if there's something true in what they're singing about, I enjoy it more. If that offends your sensibilities, think about the movie Ben Hur. Great film with lots of awesome moments, including the brief shot of a crucified Christ in profile, with a brewing storm in the background... great fiction, no different from the Eye of Sauron or whatever. Syntheism, for whatever reason, is simply making a big deal about the fact that some of the things we accept as true in the context of fiction happen to overlap with what some religions claim is true. From there, they make the (unjustified) leap: that's what religion must REALLY be all about. Religious liturgy also features a lot of nice calligraphy. There is no more basis to say religion is REALLY all about people pretending their tenets are true for an emotional high than to say it is about making fine calligraphy.

 

[dystopian]

No, it really isn't the same. Not even close. I'm not even sure how one could equate the two after thinking about it for more than two seconds. When you suspend your disbelief for an hour so you can enjoy star wars, does that mean that during that hour you ACTUALLY think there's a deathstar out there in a galaxy far far away? Or does it just mean you're not constantly going "THERE'S NO FUCKING SOUND IN SPACE YOU MORONS"? Suspending your disbelief in order to be entertained by a movie for a bit doesn't take any particular effort. What you're proposing *does* take effort and isn't done for the sole purpose of wasting an afternoon with a little light entertainment. Also rather than just suspending your disbelief which is an inherently passive thing to do, it requires you to *actively* imagine/act as if something is true.

To be fair to DrZoidberg, I think he isn't far off the mark when he compares "giving in" to a movie's logic or the premise of a novel to "giving in" to the energy of, say, gospel music. I can't deny that gospel music has a certain infectious quality, and if I listen to it as if there's something true in what they're singing about, I enjoy it more.

It's not really what we're talking about though, is it. Neither of those take any real mental energy to accomplish. It's not like you're going "I think the concept of music makes no sense, but let's pretend for a moment that it's not utterly ridiculous and tha... holy shit, woaw what are my feet doing!? I've found the power of funk!" Both of those things are just a form of entertainment; which doesn't require any significent amount of exercise of mental discipline. Syntheists on the other hand seems to take something they know isn't true, and then expend a substantial amount of mental discipline into pretending that it is in exchange for ill-defined benefits. It doesn't seem to be for entertainment purposes only. That's the main difference; one is a passive 'let's just go with it', and the other requires active mental effort.

To me, equating the two seems like saying that reading a fantasy book and writing a fantasy book are basically the same thing because in both cases your brain is actually interpreting the words and imagining the fantasy world they describe. They're not the same thing of course; they're two different things that are related by a common factor. And to further the analogy, in this case the relation would be used by someone to justify the act of writing a fantasy book where the words don't actually combine to mean anything, by suggesting that the person who doesn't understand the point of doing so is a bit daft because he on occasion enjoys reading fantasy books.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You've misunderstood fundamentally what Syntheism is. Alexander Bard's philosophy and exploration of what Syntheism means to him is exactly that. It's just him and his thoughts. It's not required reading. You don't even need to agree. You can disagree and still be just as good a Syntheist. All articles on Syntheism.org are personal. It's about each authors own personal journey.

That sounds like damage control. The fact is that the book is called Syntheism and it says what Syntheism is, not just for the author, but for everybody. You are suggesting we think of Hubbard as just a guy with his own personal thoughts about what Scientology means to him, and by-the-way here is a link to his entire book and what do you think of it, but don't presume it has anything to do with Scientology, because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding.

ha ha,... you're making me sound like some sort of propaganda minister of Syntheism. I do zero evangelising for Syntheism. So far all the people who have joined us are people who have come up with the same idea on their own, and have then come across us. Our members have required zero convincing, and have gotten what it's all about way before joining us or even hearing about us. Alexander Bard is free to say what the fuck he wants. Hubbard was in a position of power within Scientology. Bard has zero power within Syntheism.

When we first sat down to design Syntheism, (yes I was in that first original group which included Bard) we specifically wanted to avoid it becoming a cult, or becoming a vehicle for cultism. It was something we worried about a lot. Which is the reason that it's so open source and lacks any kind of dogma or cohesive rules. It's why we have no priests or figures of authority. Three years in and after some reflecting I think that worry was unfounded. Sceptics don't cult well. Syntheism consists almost entirely of ex-new atheists who have read all those books and realised that all those books ended up doing is making them envious of religious theists. But they're still as much scientifically minded atheist sceptics.

There have been cult leader type personalities who have joined us. Or at least... that's my suspicion of them. I suspect they've seen a new group of marginalised (most of us aren't) and disenfranchised (not this either). They've then proceeded to become incredibly active and charming creating events, listening to people, but then as soon as the drama and politics start and they realise that nobody cares and they move on (back to the swamp of New Age from where they came).

Yes, it's still a risk that Syntheism may turn into a cult. But I don't think it's inevitable. My hope is that the knowledge of the psychological mechanics of how cults work will act to insulate us from ever becoming a cult. Also, as long as the world of New Age exist, they will act to draw psychopath cult leaders away from Syntheism. New Age seems to be a magnet for such types. And finally... there are plenty of religious group who aren't cults. If they can do it, of course, we can too. But sure, it's always good to be ever vigilant of any such tendencies.

The point with Syntheism is the community, the shared rituals. But we can fill it with what the fuck we want. The atheistic insight is that God has no substance. The atheist has realized that God is simply an empty canvas onto which the believer projects whatever the believer wants or needs. What sets Syntheists apart from other atheists is that we've realized that gods can actually be a useful mental tool. Projecting our inner thoughts and desires onto an empty canvas is an excellent way to learn about ourselves.

But by your own admission, there seems to be nothing about the concept of gods in particular that sets them apart from other exercises in self-deception. You told Dystopian (and did not correct me when I observed) that the way you approach gods and the rituals that surround them is exactly the same as going to the movies, reading a novel, or even playing a video game with a decent story. Presumably, many atheists do these things. But when they get together and talk about it, they don't think of it as a religious gathering, and instead of saying "we are projecting our intersubjective vision into the future" they say "cool we have the same taste in horror films." If there is a way that pretending god is real in a religious ceremony is a better way to learn about ourselves than pretending Moriarty and Holmes are real for the purposes of this week's episode of Sherlock, what is it? I think I know: when it's just Moriarty and Holmes, you don't get to use New Age terminology, you don't get to have a write-up in Vice, and you don't get to say you know what religion is all about across history without doing the research. That's why stuff like this ruffles my feathers so much... it's nothing at all when you peel away the layers, but it cynically (or innocently, I can't be sure) appropriates existing buzzwords to get people's attention, while being just slippery enough to maintain a veneer of humility when pressed.

The difference lies in the community. If you like, you can view it as a book club. Yes, reading a book alone can by itself be extremely rewarding. But first reading it and then sharing this experience with others can be even more rewarding. There's also human instinct. We just like doing stuff together in groups. That's basic human nature. Sure, all this can be done without calling it a religion. Many people have successfully organised all manner of activities without having to call it a religion. I just like joining a group where there is no excuse activity to keep us together. We're just there because we like taking time out of our week to hang out with people we otherwise never would. Part of the beauty with the congregation is that it's such a variety of members. In my private life I only hang out with a very exclusive and socially similar people... who also are similar to me. Going to Syntheist mass keeps me humble and helps me keep perspective. A while back one member had a talk where he explained how life was for somebody who was depressed. I'd never taken the time to listen to this in any other circumstance. It was very powerful to me, and I'm grateful I was there.

Nobody needs Syntheism. But then again... I've never claimed anybody did. It works for me. That's why I'm still a member. So far there's been lots of people joining, and very few leaving. I think that says a lot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's an assertion in the same sense that saying rain is wet is an assertion. Yes, it's an assertion, but it's also self-evidently true.

There's a problem here.

1) you're wrong
2) you adamantly claim that you're right.

What am I supposed to do with this? I can say that you're wrong again.

You start by admitting that you made the concepts up, and next you say 'but it doesn't matter that I made it up, I'm still doing the whole worship and ritual thing even though I don't believe it, because I get some sort of personal benefit from it.'

How is that not the very *definition* of pretending?

I really can't help you. I don't understand what it is you don't understand? This is not hard.

Have you never gone to the movies and afterwards felt inspired to do something you otherwise wouldn't have?

"I believe that following those lines of thought can make us unearth a sort of metabelief, or a "supreme fiction" to use Simon Critchley's concept. A fiction that we know to be a fiction but that we can believe in nonetheless, because of its real implications and effects. In a way that's a definition of Syntheos. An intersubjective projection on the future which materializes, in part or in full, just like other ideas and visions do."

A fine bit of prattle that just doesn't work. You can't actually 'believe' in a something you *know* to be fiction. Those are two mutually exclusive positions. You can't believe something you know isn't true. You can pretend you believe it, but you can't actually *believe* it.

It's also prattle on account of the claim that we can believe in the fiction because it has 'real implications and effects'; which is predicated on one's inability to separate correlation and cause. Just because christians sometimes feel good when they pray to god, *doesn't* mean that that is the actual mechanism that's making them feel good and that you can just strip away the belief component as an atheist and replace it with something you made up to get the same effect.

Sure, you can. But I personally can't see the point of inventing a god whose sole purpose is to make us feel good. That's not a helpful god concept since it'll just act to turn you into a passive child. That's the Christian concept of God btw. I'm not a Christian.

It's not the fiction or the rituals themselves that make them feel good. It's kind of like suggesting that you can get the same feeling a cocaine addict experiences byjust replace the cocaine with flour because 'obviously' the thing that's making them feel good is the snorting a white powder part, instead of the specific neurochemical interactions caused by snorting cocaine.

I must admit that I've never tried psychosomatic cocaine snorting. But I have done Kundalini yoga. They use a breathing technique (it's just hyperventilating) together with meditation and you'll get high as a kite. You can even start hallucinating. Deliriously happy for no reason. It's incredibly simple to do and works every time. That's the power of the mind combined with a little physical exercise. You can do a lot with the mind alone. I get a feeling from your responses that you haven't tried experimenting with your mind and body at all? Because... none of this is particularly controversial or weird.

No it isn't. It is EXACTLY the same thing. No different. I think your problem here is that you're using an absolutely idiotic example of theism to compare with. And you're completely blind to the fact that there may be other ways of being theistic. Well.. good for you. But you're not likely to convince me of anything with that attitude.

No, it really isn't the same. Not even close. I'm not even sure how one could equate the two after thinking about it for more than two seconds. When you suspend your disbelief for an hour so you can enjoy star wars, does that mean that during that hour you ACTUALLY think there's a deathstar out there in a galaxy far far away? Or does it just mean you're not constantly going "THERE'S NO FUCKING SOUND IN SPACE YOU MORONS"? Suspending your disbelief in order to be entertained by a movie for a bit doesn't take any particular effort. What you're proposing *does* take effort and isn't done for the sole purpose of wasting an afternoon with a little light entertainment. Also rather than just suspending your disbelief which is an inherently passive thing to do, it requires you to *actively* imagine/act as if something is true.

Even if it were true that the two things are exactly the same though, it would be a horrible argument for you to use because it would immediately make me go; "Okay, so basically syntheism is the equivalent of me shutting down the parts of my brain that keep telling me 'that's not how that works and why the fuck are you watching an Adam Sandler movie don't you remember he is a horribly annoying twat?".

It's still the exact same thing. And if you can't figure out how to use that same psychological mechanism of your brain to your advantage... well... That's a shame for you. It's not hard, difficult or particularly advanced. Children who play, do it all the time. They require no advanced teaching or special insights.

Also, I'm actually comparing syntheism with all forms of theism and not specifically christianity. It's just that all forms of theism are essentially idiotic to begin with. It would make absolutely no difference to my position if I or you were to replace the comparison to Christians with Buddhists or any other group of theists. Same basic problems apply.

Nicely asserted. That sure convinced me *sarcasm*

I don't get a warm tingly feeling feeling from my invented divinities. I want gods that inspire me to do shit. Not turn me passive. It's basically just a tool for conditioning my own brain. This is no different than learning anything. We've all got our foibles and unwanted behaviours and quirks. We've all got stuff to work on. Ritualising the conditioning is a perfect way not to forget it. It's really quite simple. And it works. At least it works for me.

Again, why exactly do you need these invented divinities? You could replace these invented divinities with anything at all. In fact, you don't even need invented *anything* in order to get inspired or condition yourself to do certain things or think in certain ways. You don't need to add all the faux-religious baggage. Why on Earth do you need to invent a fake religion to do any of this? Why not just do it? You're adding all sorts of nonsense to something that just doesn't need it; and in the process you're taking a big step back.

Because I believe, that fundamentally, this is what religion is. All religion. Even theist religion. I believe that all gods started out as wholly invented mental tools (metaphors), that over time morphed into concrete entities, because stupid people have always had problems separating the metaphorical from the real.

And since we (Syntheists) are doing religion, I think it's the most honest to call it exactly what it is. But you're welcome to call it something else. I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.

Theists and atheists do and feel all the same things; it's just that the theist adds a bunch of unnecessary steps in between that they believe are absolutely essential. An atheist has cut that superfluous nonsense from his life and realizes that the steps based on superstitious beliefs aren't needed to get the same result. You're putting those steps back, which is worse because you don't even believe they're essential the way the theist does. It's one step forward, two steps back.

I used to share this belief 100%. It wasn't even that long ago. So I definitely understand how you are thinking. But now I don't agree. Religions look and feel just the way they do, because the way they do it is the optimal way to maximise the effect. They're just as much a product of evolution as everything else in our world.

Ok, fine. Nice that you can relate. I can't.

So you've been on this forum for years, reading all these posts from Americans and people from other overtly religious countries explaining what life is like over there and how religion impacts them... but you lack any and all ability to relate to what they're saying because Swedish people apparently agree with each other all the time or never use annoying empty catchphrases, "gotcha!"'s, and outright falsehoods when confronting the people they don't agree with. That's what it sounds like you're saying, because I honestly can not see how a human being could otherwise fail to relate to this annoyance.

On atheist forums there are:

1) atheists who's beliefs and values I share almost entirely
2) incredibly dumb evangelical fundies saying amazingly retarded things

I have never been around reasonable theists for any length of time. I have come to realise that my view of a theists (shaped by being on forums like this) is wholly imaginary. I don't know how normal and reasonable theists behave (or what beliefs they hold) in their natural habitat. I have no clue. I suspect that there does exist smart theists. I would like to meet one. After that has happened I'll change my stance on this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That sounds like damage control. The fact is that the book is called Syntheism and it says what Syntheism is, not just for the author, but for everybody. You are suggesting we think of Hubbard as just a guy with his own personal thoughts about what Scientology means to him, and by-the-way here is a link to his entire book and what do you think of it, but don't presume it has anything to do with Scientology, because that would be a fundamental misunderstanding.

I agree, it very much reads like the basis of a cult. Now, I'm willing to accept Zoidberg's claim that anyone is free to disagree and that you'd still be a good syntheist and that it probably isn't a cult in any classic sense. Fine, let's ignore the potential pitfalls with the way that the words of an organization or movement's founder tend to coalesce over time into an established doctrine, and let's just go with the idea that it's basically about your own personal journey and what not. Doesn't that just mean the whole thing is completely undefined and meaningless? it seems a bit useless to join a philosophical movement whose central tenet is claimed to be "Just find your own way man, whatever." What point is there to being part of a movement where that is the only real binding factor? Kind of reminds me of those incredibly vague self-help gurus who can talk for three hours straight and electrify a crowd without saying anything more substantial than "Hi my name is [x] and I'm here to talk to you about [y]"

It's not a philosophical movement. Philosophy is about thinking. It's an intellectual activity. Religion is an 100% emotional activity. I think there's a value in spending time around people which I otherwise wouldn't. I take an hour a week off my regular activities and spend it together with other Syntheists. I can't really explain what it does for me, other than it helps me stay humble and makes me feel great afterwards. It's a safe place where I can let go of all masks and pretences for a bit. It helps me emotionally. It's really that simple.

edit: ...another thing that makes this un-cultish is that most of my friends are not Syntheists. I think that's the similar situation for most of us. So far there hasn't developed any kind of in-group and out-group. People show up for mass when they're in the mood for it. There's zero pressure to attend. Zero. In the church there still hasn't developed any kind of hierarchy or authority.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it really isn't the same. Not even close. I'm not even sure how one could equate the two after thinking about it for more than two seconds. When you suspend your disbelief for an hour so you can enjoy star wars, does that mean that during that hour you ACTUALLY think there's a deathstar out there in a galaxy far far away? Or does it just mean you're not constantly going "THERE'S NO FUCKING SOUND IN SPACE YOU MORONS"? Suspending your disbelief in order to be entertained by a movie for a bit doesn't take any particular effort. What you're proposing *does* take effort and isn't done for the sole purpose of wasting an afternoon with a little light entertainment. Also rather than just suspending your disbelief which is an inherently passive thing to do, it requires you to *actively* imagine/act as if something is true.

To be fair to DrZoidberg, I think he isn't far off the mark when he compares "giving in" to a movie's logic or the premise of a novel to "giving in" to the energy of, say, gospel music. I can't deny that gospel music has a certain infectious quality, and if I listen to it as if there's something true in what they're singing about, I enjoy it more. If that offends your sensibilities, think about the movie Ben Hur. Great film with lots of awesome moments, including the brief shot of a crucified Christ in profile, with a brewing storm in the background... great fiction, no different from the Eye of Sauron or whatever. Syntheism, for whatever reason, is simply making a big deal about the fact that some of the things we accept as true in the context of fiction happen to overlap with what some religions claim is true. From there, they make the (unjustified) leap: that's what religion must REALLY be all about. Religious liturgy also features a lot of nice calligraphy. There is no more basis to say religion is REALLY all about people pretending their tenets are true for an emotional high than to say it is about making fine calligraphy.

Hmmmm. Not "they". I make that claim. So don't pin that on the Syntheistic movement as a whole. It's just me. Syntheists are members for a variety of reasons. It's an eclectic group, all with their own motivations. There's a lot of very smart members. Just from the demographics I can say that this is a movement that attracts academics (mostly hard science and IT folks) and artists.

I think that the major problems that face all the major religions today is that they've over-thought it. They've have taken a psychological quirk of our brains, something fairly simple and banal and turned it into something extraordinarily convoluted and officious... for no good reason. Religion is about emotions. It's not an intellectual activity. The same goes for watching a movie. Everything stupid, silly and destructive about religion today is that the faithful like to pretend that religion is an intellectual activity. Something greater or more profound than it really is. But even if a religion doesn't have the answer to all the universes deepest and greatest secrets it can still be a worthwhile activity.

 

[dystopian]

There's a problem here.

1) you're wrong
2) you adamantly claim that you're right.

Uhm. You haven't actually explained why I'm supposedly wrong. *you* have merely adamantly asserted it.

You claim that the pretending you're doing is somehow meaningful because you get a benefit from it (a benefit that has not been very well defined, or at all, I might add). To that I essentially responded that you're mistakenly attributing that benefit to the pretending part, rather than to something you could just as easily accomplish without the pretending part; thus stating that what you're doing is empty and meaningless. To this you then responded by repeating the first claim; thus it is you who is adamantly claiming that you're right, even though you have not endeavored to demonstrate such to be the case.

What am I to do? I can but repeat the self-evident truth that pretending (which you acknowledge you're doing by acknowledging that the beliefs are made up) to believe these things in order to get a benefit you could just as easily get without pretending, is meaningless.

Have you never gone to the movies and afterwards felt inspired to do something you otherwise wouldn't have?

Then why not just go see a movie instead of pretending to be part of a religion? Why don't you understand that you're adding a completely unnecessary step to the process of getting inspired?

Sure, you can. But I personally can't see the point of inventing a god whose sole purpose is to make us feel good. That's not a helpful god concept since it'll just act to turn you into a passive child. That's the Christian concept of God btw. I'm not a Christian.

Yes, I *suppose* you can strip away the belief component as an atheist and replace it with something you've made up in order to get the same effect... if by doing so you mean pretending that that's what you're doing because you're actually mistaking correlation for causation and you're ignoring the actual factors that are causing the effect you might be feeling. Factors, which as I've repeatedly explained, are not exclusive to this pretendy method and the effects of which you could enjoy without degrading yourself by doing the mental equivalent of the crazy lady downstairs who spends her savings on buying herself a whole bunch of crystals which then get the credit every time she recovers from the common cold.

I must admit that I've never tried psychosomatic cocaine snorting. But I have done Kundalini yoga. They use a breathing technique (it's just hyperventilating) together with meditation and you'll get high as a kite. You can even start hallucinating. Deliriously happy for no reason. It's incredibly simple to do and works every time. That's the power of the mind combined with a little physical exercise. You can do a lot with the mind alone. I get a feeling from your responses that you haven't tried experimenting with your mind and body at all? Because... none of this is particularly controversial or weird.

No, what you're getting from my response is an inability to understand why you need to add the pretend-spiritual nonsense to it. Did I ever say that hyperventilating doesn't have physiological effects? Did I ever say that the mind can't make you hallucinate? No, of course not. I'm merely questioning the banality of adding philosophy or religion to the mix. You even acknowledge in the paragraph above that you don't need these things to get the same effect. It's just hyperventilating. It's just a breathing technique. You *know* that all the crap about "kundalini energy" is nonsensical and not necessary to achieve the effect... so why would you insist on keeping that part of the process intact, or worse, replacing it with something else that's just as superfluous but even more ridiculous because *nobody* believes it?

Incidentally, I'm not particularly inclined to experiment with my mind and body by making it malfunction just so I can briefly experience what it's like to be schizophrenic and/or pretend that I'm 'one with the universe'.

It's still the exact same thing.

One requires active effort, the other does not. They are not the exact same thing; they are two different things related by a common factor; and the only reason why you're insisting on them being the exact same thing because doing so enables you to use it as a "aha gotcha!" argument; which incidentally is exactly like the Christian going to the atheist; "Aha! I gotcha! Because atheism is just another religion!"

Nicely asserted. That sure convinced me *sarcasm*

I'm not sure what you're expecting. You made a big deal about me being wrong because I'm comparing you to christians and that if I could only compare you to "less idiotic" religions things would be different. All I did was point out that christianity is not, in fact, particularly more idiotic than other religions and that as such it really doesn't matter what religion I compare you to. If you want to insist that christianity *is* in fact somehow more idiotic than other religions, feel free to start a thread about it and we can discuss; but that's not the point.

Because I believe, that fundamentally, this is what religion is. All religion. Even theist religion. I believe that all gods started out as wholly invented mental tools (metaphors), that over time morphed into concrete entities, because stupid people have always had problems separating the metaphorical from the real.

And since we (Syntheists) are doing religion, I think it's the most honest to call it exactly what it is. But you're welcome to call it something else. I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.

...

So, you believe, fundamentally (without any evidence for it but let's ignore that), that gods are made up in order to inspire people to do certain things and then over time morph into concrete entities because stupid people are incapable of separating fact from fiction... so your response is to do the exact same thing but expect a different result?

You do this even though you *know* that there are ways to get inspired WITHOUT all this junk... even though you say that stupid people will eventually morph it into yet another 'we actually believe this crap' religion.

And you wonder why people think you're being a bit silly?

I used to share this belief 100%. It wasn't even that long ago. So I definitely understand how you are thinking. But now I don't agree. Religions look and feel just the way they do, because the way they do it is the optimal way to maximise the effect. They're just as much a product of evolution as everything else in our world.

Oh great, the "I used to be like you, but I'm better now" card. I'm going to annoy you again by comparing you to christians.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Uhm. You haven't actually explained why I'm supposedly wrong. *you* have merely adamantly asserted it.

You claim that the pretending you're doing is somehow meaningful because you get a benefit from it (a benefit that has not been very well defined, or at all, I might add). To that I essentially responded that you're mistakenly attributing that benefit to the pretending part, rather than to something you could just as easily accomplish without the pretending part; thus stating that what you're doing is empty and meaningless. To this you then responded by repeating the first claim; thus it is you who is adamantly claiming that you're right, even though you have not endeavored to demonstrate such to be the case.

What am I to do? I can but repeat the self-evident truth that pretending (which you acknowledge you're doing by acknowledging that the beliefs are made up) to believe these things in order to get a benefit you could just as easily get without pretending, is meaningless.

I'll have another try at explaining myself. You have created a very narrow definition of god and what it means to believe in god. Yes, to worship your type of god would be pointless. Which is why my definition of god is different. You then proceeded to assert it as impossible for any other definition or use of the concept of god.

Have you never gone to the movies and afterwards felt inspired to do something you otherwise wouldn't have?

Then why not just go see a movie instead of pretending to be part of a religion? Why don't you understand that you're adding a completely unnecessary step to the process of getting inspired?

Movies rarely have a functional aspect. It mainly focuses on making you feel empathy for the characters and feel a lot in general. The same psychological mechanic can be employed for all manner of things in life. I have my apartment full of art. Most of the paintings I have, I have painted myself. The living room has paintings with bright lively colours. The bedroom, calming colours. The art is functional. Art can go both ways. When you go and see a movie you're always a passive consumer. There's also rarely a functional aspect. Also.. making your own movie is incredibly time consuming and expensive. Just painting paintings is hard work. Religion is way cheaper and more effective.

Sure, you can. But I personally can't see the point of inventing a god whose sole purpose is to make us feel good. That's not a helpful god concept since it'll just act to turn you into a passive child. That's the Christian concept of God btw. I'm not a Christian.

Yes, I *suppose* you can strip away the belief component as an atheist and replace it with something you've made up in order to get the same effect... if by doing so you mean pretending that that's what you're doing because you're actually mistaking correlation for causation and you're ignoring the actual factors that are causing the effect you might be feeling. Factors, which as I've repeatedly explained, are not exclusive to this pretendy method and the effects of which you could enjoy without degrading yourself by doing the mental equivalent of the crazy lady downstairs who spends her savings on buying herself a whole bunch of crystals which then get the credit every time she recovers from the common cold.

Since starting/joining Syntheism I've grown emotionally by leaps and bounds. Mostly this came from reading existing religious texts with a Syntheistic mindset. Ie, the gods of all these books are also purely metaphorical. I've discovered a treasure trove of wisdom that has helped me. If that makes me a crazy cat lady... fine. But I am way more happy and mentally well functioning now than I've ever been. I waste way less time doing shit that I don't really care about now, compared to just a few years ago. My quality of life has gone up many times over. All this from employing fairly simple tricks of the mind. The major world religions aren't all hokey and bullshit. Yes, a lot of it is bullshit. But far from all of it. That's basically my insight from all this.

The Syntheistic project is to take all the existing religions and strip away the concrete god from them, and replace them with purely metaphorical gods. This works differently well for different religions. Christianity almost completely collapses by doing this. But all other religions (including Islam) still work fine after doing this. It's also allowed me to study ancient Norse religion and have increased me respect and understanding of them. Me being of Viking descent, this has been a big thing for me.

I must admit that I've never tried psychosomatic cocaine snorting. But I have done Kundalini yoga. They use a breathing technique (it's just hyperventilating) together with meditation and you'll get high as a kite. You can even start hallucinating. Deliriously happy for no reason. It's incredibly simple to do and works every time. That's the power of the mind combined with a little physical exercise. You can do a lot with the mind alone. I get a feeling from your responses that you haven't tried experimenting with your mind and body at all? Because... none of this is particularly controversial or weird.

No, what you're getting from my response is an inability to understand why you need to add the pretend-spiritual nonsense to it. Did I ever say that hyperventilating doesn't have physiological effects? Did I ever say that the mind can't make you hallucinate? No, of course not. I'm merely questioning the banality of adding philosophy or religion to the mix. You even acknowledge in the paragraph above that you don't need these things to get the same effect. It's just hyperventilating. It's just a breathing technique. You *know* that all the crap about "kundalini energy" is nonsensical and not necessary to achieve the effect... so why would you insist on keeping that part of the process intact, or worse, replacing it with something else that's just as superfluous but even more ridiculous because *nobody* believes it?

You've answered the question. This is the reason. Anything we incorporate into Syntheism is purely based on real science, without the hokey nonsense. We strip away all the New Age jargon. I like doing Kundalini yoga together with other people who have understood that there's no magic involved.

Incidentally, I'm not particularly inclined to experiment with my mind and body by making it malfunction just so I can briefly experience what it's like to be schizophrenic and/or pretend that I'm 'one with the universe'.

That's like saying you'd never go the gym because you don't like causing muscular trauma. Pushing the limits of what our minds and bodies can do is how we grow. It's such a stupidly banal insight I'm mystified as to how you've managed to go throw life avoiding it for so long.

It's still the exact same thing.

One requires active effort, the other does not. They are not the exact same thing; they are two different things related by a common factor; and the only reason why you're insisting on them being the exact same thing because doing so enables you to use it as a "aha gotcha!" argument; which incidentally is exactly like the Christian going to the atheist; "Aha! I gotcha! Because atheism is just another religion!"

Ok... fine. You got me with your amazing brains and intellect *sarcasm*

I'm not sure what you're expecting. You made a big deal about me being wrong because I'm comparing you to christians and that if I could only compare you to "less idiotic" religions things would be different. All I did was point out that christianity is not, in fact, particularly more idiotic than other religions and that as such it really doesn't matter what religion I compare you to. If you want to insist that christianity *is* in fact somehow more idiotic than other religions, feel free to start a thread about it and we can discuss; but that's not the point.

Straw man

So, you believe, fundamentally (without any evidence for it but let's ignore that), that gods are made up in order to inspire people to do certain things and then over time morph into concrete entities because stupid people are incapable of separating fact from fiction... so your response is to do the exact same thing but expect a different result?

Yes. Here's the long answer: The only way to make theistic religion go away is to replace it with something else that fills the same function in the lives of the faithful. Modern atheism has been around for about 300 years. Religion is going as strong today as it's ever done. This is in spite of obviously being true. Theistic religion is incredibly dumb ass. My firmly held belief is that religions are functional and important to most peoples lives, for real non-delusional reasons. And since I started religioning with Syntheism I now understand what they're all on about. Or at least I've found an aspect of religion that actually works and makes my life better.

The hope is that by making it explicit that we're atheists our metaphorical gods will never morph into concrete gods. It's worked into the fundamentals of what it means to by Syntheistic. The clue is also in the title. Our gods are synthetic.

You do this even though you *know* that there are ways to get inspired WITHOUT all this junk... even though you say that stupid people will eventually morph it into yet another 'we actually believe this crap' religion.

Yes, of course. Religion is just a very efficient method. Why do something hard, when it can

And you wonder why people think you're being a bit silly?

I understand where you're coming from. A couple of years ago I too would have thought I was silly.

I used to share this belief 100%. It wasn't even that long ago. So I definitely understand how you are thinking. But now I don't agree. Religions look and feel just the way they do, because the way they do it is the optimal way to maximise the effect. They're just as much a product of evolution as everything else in our world.

Oh great, the "I used to be like you, but I'm better now" card. I'm going to annoy you again by comparing you to christians.

ha ha... I'll have to give you that. But it's true

 

[PyramidHead]

To be fair to DrZoidberg, I think he isn't far off the mark when he compares "giving in" to a movie's logic or the premise of a novel to "giving in" to the energy of, say, gospel music. I can't deny that gospel music has a certain infectious quality, and if I listen to it as if there's something true in what they're singing about, I enjoy it more. If that offends your sensibilities, think about the movie Ben Hur. Great film with lots of awesome moments, including the brief shot of a crucified Christ in profile, with a brewing storm in the background... great fiction, no different from the Eye of Sauron or whatever. Syntheism, for whatever reason, is simply making a big deal about the fact that some of the things we accept as true in the context of fiction happen to overlap with what some religions claim is true. From there, they make the (unjustified) leap: that's what religion must REALLY be all about. Religious liturgy also features a lot of nice calligraphy. There is no more basis to say religion is REALLY all about people pretending their tenets are true for an emotional high than to say it is about making fine calligraphy.

Hmmmm. Not "they". I make that claim. So don't pin that on the Syntheistic movement as a whole. It's just me. Syntheists are members for a variety of reasons. It's an eclectic group, all with their own motivations. There's a lot of very smart members. Just from the demographics I can say that this is a movement that attracts academics (mostly hard science and IT folks) and artists.

I think that the major problems that face all the major religions today is that they've over-thought it. They've have taken a psychological quirk of our brains, something fairly simple and banal and turned it into something extraordinarily convoluted and officious... for no good reason. Religion is about emotions. It's not an intellectual activity. The same goes for watching a movie. Everything stupid, silly and destructive about religion today is that the faithful like to pretend that religion is an intellectual activity. Something greater or more profound than it really is. But even if a religion doesn't have the answer to all the universes deepest and greatest secrets it can still be a worthwhile activity.

My problem with your analysis is that you are still supposing that religion is defined by what works for you, and everybody else is missing the point. You need to back down from telling people they are doing religion wrong, when so far you haven't given any justification about why you're not the one doing it wrong. I mean, if it's just words and how they are used, anything can mean anything. But when you extend your personal experience to the whole of humanity, you end up saying dopey things, like religion has never been a justification for violence or war.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmmmm. Not "they". I make that claim. So don't pin that on the Syntheistic movement as a whole. It's just me. Syntheists are members for a variety of reasons. It's an eclectic group, all with their own motivations. There's a lot of very smart members. Just from the demographics I can say that this is a movement that attracts academics (mostly hard science and IT folks) and artists.

I think that the major problems that face all the major religions today is that they've over-thought it. They've have taken a psychological quirk of our brains, something fairly simple and banal and turned it into something extraordinarily convoluted and officious... for no good reason. Religion is about emotions. It's not an intellectual activity. The same goes for watching a movie. Everything stupid, silly and destructive about religion today is that the faithful like to pretend that religion is an intellectual activity. Something greater or more profound than it really is. But even if a religion doesn't have the answer to all the universes deepest and greatest secrets it can still be a worthwhile activity.

My problem with your analysis is that you are still supposing that religion is defined by what works for you, and everybody else is missing the point. You need to back down from telling people they are doing religion wrong, when so far you haven't given any justification about why you're not the one doing it wrong. I mean, if it's just words and how they are used, anything can mean anything. But when you extend your personal experience to the whole of humanity,

My claim isn't that theistic religions are necessarily doing it wrong. Only that they've included stuff into their faiths that aren't necessary. I'm not even saying that non-religious atheists are doing it wrong either. If you don't need religion in your life you don't. Life is short. You should prioritise and spend your time on the stuff that is the most important to you. If religion isn't important to you then it isn't. Is the fact that people are different a concept you have trouble accepting?

Also... you're an atheist... ergo you also think that all theists are wrong. So I don't understand what your problem is with that? Why do you see it as a problem that your belief has implications on how you judge others?

If religion only was about the worship of God, for the sake of God, then (I also would believe) religion would be a waste of time (since god doesn't really exist). My claim is that religion actually can be a positive force in people's lives and minds (in spite of god not existing). Not just because it puts the fear of god in people and blackmails them to do good or they won't go to heaven. I think faith in god can do good and be useful for the faithful themselves. I think that is the ONLY reason religion still exists today. It's life-hacking if you will. It was this simple insight that made me want to be part of an atheistic religion. And it's a powerful mental tool. Like all tools it can be used for both good and evil.

A good example is how AA uses a higher power to help them refrain from alcohol. Sure, AA was created by a deeply Christian man. But God in AA is smarter than that. The AA higher power is reduced to a mental tool that will work regardless if you're a theist or not. AA is an extreme example. But the principle is the same.

you end up saying dopey things, like religion has never been a justification for violence or war.

I don't think that statement is dopey at all. It is what I actually believe. Religion often gets blamed for being the root cause. But it doesn't take much scraping at the surface to uncover the real reason. It's always power and money at the root. But I can't really see how this is relevant to this topic?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If religion only was about the worship of God, for the sake of God, then (I also would believe) religion would be a waste of time (since god doesn't really exist). My claim is that religion actually can be a positive force in people's lives and minds (in spite of god not existing).

This is the part that you lose me on. While religion can certainly be a positive force in people's lives, why do you need the belief in god part, whether you view that god as real or fake, in order to get those benefits? I just don't see what positive effects require a deity (fictional or otherwise) which can't be achieved equally well without it. Could you be more specific about what exactly the benefits are of putting the fake god into the system are.

 

[dystopian]

I'll have another try at explaining myself. You have created a very narrow definition of god and what it means to believe in god. Yes, to worship your type of god would be pointless. Which is why my definition of god is different. You then proceeded to assert it as impossible for any other definition or use of the concept of god.

You are mistaken; you're just *assuming* that I'm defining god in a particularly narrow way (ie; the christian/monotheistic) variety. I'm not really limiting myself to a specific religion's definition; it's just that it doesn't matter *how* you define the the thing you freely acknowledge you made up. It's pointless to believe in the made-up thing however you define it.

Movies rarely have a functional aspect.

Then go see a documentary instead.

When you go and see a movie you're always a passive consumer. There's also rarely a functional aspect. Also.. making your own movie is incredibly time consuming and expensive. Just painting paintings is hard work. Religion is way cheaper and more effective.

You're making the *exact* same point I made; namely that what you're doing is *different* from just going to see a movie. For the exact same reasons I pointed out.

Of course, that aside. Religion is *not* more effective. Certainly no evidence has been presented to show that it is effective *at all*, let alone moreso. Plus, you haven't really answered the challenge in the question; you're still trying to justify adding an *unnecessary* step in the process of getting inspired. If movies are not functional enough to inspire you the right way, then go watch a documentary. If a documentary isn't sufficient, read a book. If a book isn't sufficient, go take a walk in nature. Etc, etc, etc. All of these methods are as effective as religion; if not moreso. None of them require you to pretend things are true when you know they aren't. Reducing the steps needed to achieve a goal to the bare minimum is true pragmatism. Adding steps that aren't, is superstition.

Since starting/joining Syntheism I've grown emotionally by leaps and bounds.

Since you started/joined Syntheism, I too have grown emotionally by leaps and bounds. It's called getting older.

You haven't demonstrated that you needed syntheism to accomplish this emotional growth, or even that it had any role to play whatsoever. How am I (or even you yourself) to know what positive effect if any syntheism had on your growth? How can you expect me to believe you wouldn't have experienced the same or a similar kind of growth if you'd gone entirely without syntheism? People *constantly* go through emotional growth; it's almost impossible NOT to grow as time passes. If I can grow emotionally without a crutch, then surely you can too.

The Syntheistic project is to take all the existing religions and strip away the concrete god from them, and replace them with purely metaphorical gods. This works differently well for different religions. Christianity almost completely collapses by doing this. But all other religions (including Islam) still work fine after doing this.

What. No, "all" other religions do not still "work fine" after doing this. Neither does islam. Monotheistic religions (including islam) fall apart when you do this. You may be confused by Islam's tenet that one shouldn't visualize/imagine/try to comprehend god, thinking that because of that you could replace it with a purely metaphorical one and the whole thing still works: it doesn't. Islam is centered on the core assumption that god is *real*. The universe can't exist to a muslim if god isn't real; same as with a christian or a jew. And in fact this is true (in variations) for EVERY religion, except for certain subsects of those religions. Do not confuse the fact that there are for instance atheistic sects of hinduism with the notion that hinduism as a whole can do with god being just metaphorical (in mainstream hinduism, god not existing would mean *we* don't exist, which is an obvious problem.)

But again, why bother keeping religion at all, stripped down or otherwise? There are hundreds of millions of atheists who do just fine in life without any form of religion whatsoever, metaphorical or otherwise. They experience plenty of positive personal growth without theism or syntheism. It's obvious that neither is necessary, or atheists wouldn't generally function as well as we do; and nobody has yet demonstrated that either provides something that atheists can't find somewhere else for the same amount (or less) of energy.

It's also allowed me to study ancient Norse religion and have increased me respect and understanding of them. Me being of Viking descent, this has been a big thing for me.

And again, why do you need syntheism for this? I've looked into Norse/Germanic religion too.

You've answered the question. This is the reason. Anything we incorporate into Syntheism is purely based on real science, without the hokey nonsense. We strip away all the New Age jargon. I like doing Kundalini yoga together with other people who have understood that there's no magic involved.

But everything you've said, not to mention the wordsalad on the syntheist website, demonstrates that syntheism is NOT based purely on science without the hokey nonsense. And in fact, rather than stripping away the new age jargon, you've added new age jargon where it didn't previously exist.

No really, think about it carefully. You claim that it's based purely on science without the hokey nonsense and that you've stripped away all the new age jargon; and that all you're doing is things like yoga breathing exercises or what not. Yet somehow, you felt it necessary to invent the word syntheism for this; a word that has all the hallmarks of new age jargon, especially when you start breaking down its etymology. You also felt it necessary to build up an entire movement around it which you've decided to call a religion... which is not something one free of mumbojumbo and floaty new-age sensibilities tends to do. Who strikes you as more of a floaty new-age type person? The guy who creates a movement he invents a new word for which he also calls a religion and who then spends a significant amount of time talking about the philosophy of doing things like meditating and how he's stripped away all the religious stuff from it and it's just purely scientific now... or the guy who just fucking meditates and doesn't try to justify what he's doing?

Finally, and I'm sorry, but the idea that syntheism has stripped away the new age mumbo-jumbo and anything incorporated by it is based purely on science is immediately refuted by the language used on the website and many of the articles posted upon it.

Thot's like saying you'd never go the gym because you don't like causing muscular trauma. Pushing the limits of what our minds and bodies can do is how we grow. It's such a stupidly banal insight I'm mystified as to how you've managed to go throw life avoiding it for so long.

Probably because like most people, I realize that the insight you think is so banal is in fact complete nonsense. Does a printer become better at its job if the person operating it occasionally throws a wrench into the cogs to deliberately make it break so that it prints out psychedelic looking crap instead of the stuff it's supposed to? No, it breaks the fucking machine. This is what you're doing when you deliberately try to induce hallucinations. You only hallucinate when your brain isn't doing what it's supposed to. This is also why the avoiding a gym comparison fails, because physical exercise is a normal part of the way our body functions. We even *need* it. We *don't* need to hallucinate, and it's *not* what our brain is supposed to do.

I like my braincells to not start dying off before their time because I sprayed them with too much lsd or because I prevented them from getting enough oxygen, thanks. It might be different if hallucinating could lead to actual growth or useful insights... but the only people who think it does are precisely the sort of people one really doesn't want to listen to.

Straw man

You have repeatedly accused me of holding a very narrow (ie; christian) definition of god and have explicitly stated that yes it's silly to pretend to believe in this god but not in whatever vague definition you're using. You have even explicitly stated that in the very post I'm currently replying to. Ipso facto, me pointing that that forms part of your argument can not be a strawman. In any case, the point I was making was that my arguments stand regardless of how you define god.

Yes. Here's the long answer: The only way to make theistic religion go away is to replace it with something else that fills the same function in the lives of the faithful. Modern atheism has been around for about 300 years. Religion is going as strong today as it's ever done. This is in spite of obviously being true. Theistic religion is incredibly dumb ass. My firmly held belief is that religions are functional and important to most peoples lives, for real non-delusional reasons. And since I started religioning with Syntheism I now understand what they're all on about. Or at least I've found an aspect of religion that actually works and makes my life better.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You're doing exactly the same thing you've stated you think every other religion started out as. You're not doing anything fundamentally different, yet you expect a different result. Here's what's actually going to happen to syntheism. Either it just fades away, or it eventually evolves into the same dumbass type of religion that every other religion has evolved into.

The hope is that by making it explicit that we're atheists our metaphorical gods will never morph into concrete gods.

That's nice. It's not as if other religions haven't tried that. Oh wait, they have.

It's worked into the fundamentals of what it means to by Syntheistic. The clue is also in the title. Our gods are synthetic.

Except that's not what the word means, is it? Syntheism is derived from the greek Syntheos, which doesn't mean to create god, it means either *with god* or *creating with god*; neither of which implies your gods are synthetic. If the goal is to explicitly word things so that people won't down the line turn it into a generic religion with real gods, then you should've picked a better name. You also shouldn't have made the mistake of calling it a religion.

Yes, of course. Religion is just a very efficient method. Why do something hard, when it can

First of all, because no evidence has been presented to suggest that religion is efficient at all, much less very much so.

And secondly, because it's actually *harder* to invent or be a part of a fake religion in order to get inspired than it is to get inspired in a myriad of other ways. I keep repeating this point in different guises but it just doesn't seem to sink in. You've somehow convinced yourself religion is both better and easier at motivating people then anything else. Which must make it really difficult to explain all the very motivated atheists on the planet who somehow manage to do everything right without it.

I understand where you're coming from. A couple of years ago I too would have thought I was silly.

Here's something I figured out a long time ago which is quite relevant:

Just because your younger self thought something you now believe in was stupid... doesn't mean your younger self was wrong.

People often make the mistake of thinking that because they've changed their opinions between now and an arbitrary point in the past that their past self was less evolved/educated/what have you. After all, we think our *current* opinions are true, not the opinions we held 10 years ago. And more than that, we've grown haven't we? We're older, and you know they wisdom comes with age. This is fallacious thinking. Today, I think religion is stupid. If five years from now I become a born-again christian, I will tell atheists the same thing you're telling me: "Oh you know I used to be just like..." implying that my then current beliefs on the matter are better and more evolved than my past ones. Of course, in reality, religion will still be stupid five years from now and I've just confused my descent into stupidity for an ascent into enlightenment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If religion only was about the worship of God, for the sake of God, then (I also would believe) religion would be a waste of time (since god doesn't really exist). My claim is that religion actually can be a positive force in people's lives and minds (in spite of god not existing).

This is the part that you lose me on. While religion can certainly be a positive force in people's lives, why do you need the belief in god part, whether you view that god as real or fake, in order to get those benefits? I just don't see what positive effects require a deity (fictional or otherwise) which can't be achieved equally well without it. Could you be more specific about what exactly the benefits are of putting the fake god into the system are.

I can't really explain this in a simple way, because if I say it right out it'll sound dumb. At least I will think it sounds dumb. So I'll tell you my journey.

When I first got attracted to Syntheism (or the Syntheist idea. It didn't exist yet at that point) I thought I'd just strip out god and keep the rest of religion. The basic idea is that it's the community and the rituals that is the take away. At that point god wasn't part of it at all.

By chance I started doing yoga about the same time as Syntheism got off the ground. Yoga led me to meditation, and quite soon I experienced amazing bliss while meditating. Issues and problems I've been struggling with my entire life came into focus, in a way they hadn't before. There's quite a few artists in Syntheism. When I described my experiences they looked at me as if I was a total idiot. I said things they thought was obvious. A fundamental part of art and being an artist is being in touch with one's own emotions. They actively train this skill. That's why artists do so good art, and why it resonates among us mere ordinary people who haven't trained the skill. I'm a career guy. I've always worked hard, made money. I'm a manager. My entire life is about succeeding and taking control. I wasn't comfortable with the idea that I was being ruled by emotions. Which we all obviously are. I just hadn't admitted it to myself. And certainly not trained myself to be more sensitive. Rather the opposite.

That's the point when I come across Buddhist gods. Buddhism doesn't really have gods in the sense other religions do. Buddhist gods are aspects of ourselves. They have an angry and aggressive god. They have a calm and serene god. They have a nurturing maternal god. And so on. These gods aren't to be worshipped as external entities. The idea is that you worship a Buddhist god, identify with it, and transfer that gods aspect to oneself. If you want to be more aggressive and assertive you worship that god. They use clothes, and carious chants and magical spells to emphasize the effect. This is the point when I see all this coming together. We're emotional beings. We are emotionally effected by art, and by tactile feel. We can manipulate ourselves through identifying ourselves with whatever. As I went on to study other religions concepts of god I saw this pattern emerge. All religions have gods that work on several levels. There's the idiot-interpretation and the deeper interpretation. We can't simply lift these gods out of context, because then they lose their power over our emotions. It only works if we keep them sacred. Which is just another way to use ones intellectual faculties in order to manipulate our emotions to feel something is really important. That's the only way I've figured out we can successfully make ourselves change our behaviours without making us unhappy. We can simply refrain from an activity we love anyway. But then we'll just miss it and be unhappy. The trick is to make us take pleasure in changing the behaviour. It's not until very recently that I've really understood the psychological mechanic behind all this.

Like I said, religion is not an intellectual activity. Intellectually no god makes any sense. You just need to feel it. Ok... so why call it "god" or "gods"? The best way I can put it is that when taking part in these kinds of rituals I feel something. It's been described as a "god shaped hole only god can fill". I'm still just as much an atheist as I've ever been. I don't think there's actually a god out there. But there is a quirk of our brains that allows us to feel god's presence. I don't know how better to describe it. Up until now I've avoided that terminology. But that terminology exists for a reason. And I'm not alone. Religious thinkers have constantly talked about this throughout recorded history.

It's a shame that the people who are best at contacting this part of themselves are touchy feely humanist types who rarely are scientifically trained nor particularly intellectual... and can't describe it in a way that doesn't sound completely bonkers. I'm not sure I have right now either. Reading this text it does look like the ramblings of a madman

Short anwer: Yes, it can be achieved just as well by calling it something else. But why would we?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are mistaken; you're just *assuming* that I'm defining god in a particularly narrow way (ie; the christian/monotheistic) variety. I'm not really limiting myself to a specific religion's definition; it's just that it doesn't matter *how* you define the the thing you freely acknowledge you made up. It's pointless to believe in the made-up thing however you define it.

That's circular reasoning.

Movies rarely have a functional aspect.

Then go see a documentary instead.

The point is to manipulate ourselves emotionally. We want to get away from intellectualising things. That's the whole point. So watching a documentary instead would have the exact opposite effect than the one I want.

When you go and see a movie you're always a passive consumer. There's also rarely a functional aspect. Also.. making your own movie is incredibly time consuming and expensive. Just painting paintings is hard work. Religion is way cheaper and more effective.

You're making the *exact* same point I made; namely that what you're doing is *different* from just going to see a movie. For the exact same reasons I pointed out.

...ok... now I think you're trolling me.

Of course, that aside. Religion is *not* more effective. Certainly no evidence has been presented to show that it is effective *at all*, let alone moreso. Plus, you haven't really answered the challenge in the question; you're still trying to justify adding an *unnecessary* step in the process of getting inspired. If movies are not functional enough to inspire you the right way, then go watch a documentary. If a documentary isn't sufficient, read a book. If a book isn't sufficient, go take a walk in nature. Etc, etc, etc. All of these methods are as effective as religion; if not moreso. None of them require you to pretend things are true when you know they aren't. Reducing the steps needed to achieve a goal to the bare minimum is true pragmatism. Adding steps that aren't, is superstition.

Completely irrelevant.

Since starting/joining Syntheism I've grown emotionally by leaps and bounds.

Since you started/joined Syntheism, I too have grown emotionally by leaps and bounds. It's called getting older.

ha ha.

You haven't demonstrated that you needed syntheism to accomplish this emotional growth, or even that it had any role to play whatsoever. How am I (or even you yourself) to know what positive effect if any syntheism had on your growth? How can you expect me to believe you wouldn't have experienced the same or a similar kind of growth if you'd gone entirely without syntheism? People *constantly* go through emotional growth; it's almost impossible NOT to grow as time passes. If I can grow emotionally without a crutch, then surely you can too.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I feel that I've grown more with this crutch than without it. I'm satisfied.

The Syntheistic project is to take all the existing religions and strip away the concrete god from them, and replace them with purely metaphorical gods. This works differently well for different religions. Christianity almost completely collapses by doing this. But all other religions (including Islam) still work fine after doing this.

What. No, "all" other religions do not still "work fine" after doing this. Neither does islam. Monotheistic religions (including islam) fall apart when you do this. You may be confused by Islam's tenet that one shouldn't visualize/imagine/try to comprehend god, thinking that because of that you could replace it with a purely metaphorical one and the whole thing still works: it doesn't. Islam is centered on the core assumption that god is *real*. The universe can't exist to a muslim if god isn't real; same as with a christian or a jew. And in fact this is true (in variations) for EVERY religion, except for certain subsects of those religions. Do not confuse the fact that there are for instance atheistic sects of hinduism with the notion that hinduism as a whole can do with god being just metaphorical (in mainstream hinduism, god not existing would mean *we* don't exist, which is an obvious problem.)

But again, why bother keeping religion at all, stripped down or otherwise? There are hundreds of millions of atheists who do just fine in life without any form of religion whatsoever, metaphorical or otherwise. They experience plenty of positive personal growth without theism or syntheism. It's obvious that neither is necessary, or atheists wouldn't generally function as well as we do; and nobody has yet demonstrated that either provides something that atheists can't find somewhere else for the same amount (or less) of energy.

I'm actually going to back-track here. The Syntheistic project isn't to take existing religions and strip away god. It's to create a wholly new religion. Each Syntheist co-creates it in whatever way they want. I just described what it is I'm doing. Because it works for me. Other Syntheists do it in completely different ways.

You're clearly reading these text like a fundamentalist would. I'm not a fundamentalist. So neither is my interpretation of religious holy texts. It becomes a highly subjective experience. Again.. religion is not an intellectual activity. That's as true for those who wrote the texts as it is for those who read them. It's all about what resonates in the reader emotionally. It doesn't get softer than this and doesn't lend itself well to "winning" any kind of Internet argument.

It's also allowed me to study ancient Norse religion and have increased me respect and understanding of them. Me being of Viking descent, this has been a big thing for me.

And again, why do you need syntheism for this? I've looked into Norse/Germanic religion too.

No reason. It's just a fact that I have because of Syntheism. I personally wouldn't have if it wasn't for it.

You've answered the question. This is the reason. Anything we incorporate into Syntheism is purely based on real science, without the hokey nonsense. We strip away all the New Age jargon. I like doing Kundalini yoga together with other people who have understood that there's no magic involved.

But everything you've said, not to mention the wordsalad on the syntheist website, demonstrates that syntheism is NOT based purely on science without the hokey nonsense. And in fact, rather than stripping away the new age jargon, you've added new age jargon where it didn't previously exist.

Well.. point taken. I was thinking about the yoga specifically.

Thot's like saying you'd never go the gym because you don't like causing muscular trauma. Pushing the limits of what our minds and bodies can do is how we grow. It's such a stupidly banal insight I'm mystified as to how you've managed to go throw life avoiding it for so long.

Probably because like most people, I realize that the insight you think is so banal is in fact complete nonsense. Does a printer become better at its job if the person operating it occasionally throws a wrench into the cogs to deliberately make it break so that it prints out psychedelic looking crap instead of the stuff it's supposed to? No, it breaks the fucking machine. This is what you're doing when you deliberately try to induce hallucinations. You only hallucinate when your brain isn't doing what it's supposed to. This is also why the avoiding a gym comparison fails, because physical exercise is a normal part of the way our body functions. We even *need* it. We *don't* need to hallucinate, and it's *not* what our brain is supposed to do.

I like my braincells to not start dying off before their time because I sprayed them with too much lsd or because I prevented them from getting enough oxygen, thanks. It might be different if hallucinating could lead to actual growth or useful insights... but the only people who think it does are precisely the sort of people one really doesn't want to listen to.

More trolling. I fine with you making fun of me. But make sure you're really funny when you do. Otherwise it's just tedious to read.

Yes, of course. Religion is just a very efficient method. Why do something hard, when it can

First of all, because no evidence has been presented to suggest that religion is efficient at all, much less very much so.

I'm not trying to produce any evidence or convince you of anything. I'm just saying what works for me.

And secondly, because it's actually *harder* to invent or be a part of a fake religion in order to get inspired than it is to get inspired in a myriad of other ways. I keep repeating this point in different guises but it just doesn't seem to sink in. You've somehow convinced yourself religion is both better and easier at motivating people then anything else. Which must make it really difficult to explain all the very motivated atheists on the planet who somehow manage to do everything right without it.

All religions are fake and and all gods are fake. That doesn't make them pointless. Money doesn't exist either beyond an idea. It's still a very powerful idea. Purely abstract concepts can be powerful.

I've convinced myself that Syntheism is a better and easier way to motivate me, than anything else. And that's all I expect or require from Syntheism. I don't care about the rest of you. We all need to sort out this shit for ourselves. We're all on our own journey in life.

I understand where you're coming from. A couple of years ago I too would have thought I was silly.

Here's something I figured out a long time ago which is quite relevant:

Just because your younger self thought something you now believe in was stupid... doesn't mean your younger self was wrong.

People often make the mistake of thinking that because they've changed their opinions between now and an arbitrary point in the past that their past self was less evolved/educated/what have you. After all, we think our *current* opinions are true, not the opinions we held 10 years ago. And more than that, we've grown haven't we? We're older, and you know they wisdom comes with age. This is fallacious thinking. Today, I think religion is stupid. If five years from now I become a born-again christian, I will tell atheists the same thing you're telling me: "Oh you know I used to be just like..." implying that my then current beliefs on the matter are better and more evolved than my past ones. Of course, in reality, religion will still be stupid five years from now and I've just confused my descent into stupidity for an ascent into enlightenment.

I'm not sure what your point is with this?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Short anwer: Yes, it can be achieved just as well by calling it something else. But why would we?

Mainly because it's pointless and unecessary and adds a lot of confusing and irrelevent baggage for no good reason.

It's like if someone is stressed out at work so they start going for long hikes in the evening in order to unwind. At the same time, he buys some sugar pills and start popping a few of them before the hike because he wants to benefit from the placebo effect as well. The latter doesn't do anything and any information the guy gives about how to manage anxiety is undermined by the obfuscating stuff regarding the sugar pills when the hiking is the only relevant data.

Similarly, some of the underlying tenets of syntheism may be valuable methods of gaining some of the positive results of religious experience without adding in the religious baggage. When you kind-of-sort-of add in the religious baggage while trying to pretend that you're in no way adding in any of the religious baggage and you're not getting any added benefits from doing so, it just makes it seem kind of irrelevant and silly and obfusicates any decent points which may also be included.