Syntheistic philosophy

[dystopian]

That's circular reasoning.

What.

Are you just throwing terms around for the hell of it?

Stating that it doesn't matter how you define the god concept for the purposes of this debate because my argument will remain the same is not circular reasoning. Do you think it's circular reasoning to point out to the guy who thinks his car can fly if he puts in scented bath oil that it doesn't matter WHAT kind of oil he puts in the car, it's never going to fly? Because that's essentially what I've told you. I take issue with the core assumptions underlining what you're saying; core assumptions that are wrong no matter how much you change about the things that follow from them.

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.

Then go watch the movie again. Oh wait, that's not 'functional'. But wait a minute, there are plenty of documentaries that manipulate emotions. So just go watch those instead. Or you know, manipulate your emotions by asking an actor to pick a fight with you or something, whatever.

Or, realize that I brought the movie/documentary up as a way to point out that you can get the results you're looking for in any number of creative ways, instead of the specific ways you should do it.

Now, if you want a REALLY effective way to motivate yourself to do things, get yourself a shock-collar and find something that you really really enjoy. Aversion therapy! Reward therapy! Much more effective than religion at a fraction of the effort. Order now, and we'll throw in a free electroplay fetish.

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

No, you were literally repeating my own argument; you just tried applying it elsewhere without realizing that you were proving an earlier point I made that you disagreed with.

Completely irrelevant.

Again, you seem to be just throwing things around without any regard for context. Whether or not religion/syntheism is actually an effective (or even moreso) way to do the things you say you want it to do is not irrelevant, it's the central fucking point we're arguing about.

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.

Yes, you've mentioned this. You're not doing anything new or special. And again, my argument doesn't change because the point of contention isn't that you're taking existing religions and stripping things away... it's that you're taking religion *at all*. It's an absurd thing to do. It's unnecessary. It convolutes things.

You're clearly reading these text like a fundamentalist would. I'm not a fundamentalist. So neither is my interpretation of religious holy texts.

Which again, has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument and doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter HOW you read the text; the point is that the text is at *best*, completely pointless. I don't really care *how* you interpret these texts. Let me try to break it down as simplistically as I can:

Imagine there's two car mechanics working on two different units of the same model of car with the same defect.

Mechanic A's process of determining the problem and fixing the car is to 1) open the hood, 2) looking to see if everything is in order, and upon seeing that the engine is missing a plug, 3) inserts said plug and thereby fixes the problem.

Mechanic B's process of determining the problem and fixing the car is to 1) spins around three times, 2) says 'please let me fix this car' three times, 3) open the hood, 4) looking to see if everything is in order, and upon seeing that the engine is missing a plug, 5) inserts said plug and thereby fixes the problem.

What I'm saying is that Mechanic B is adding steps to the process that are completely and utterly pointless. He is unnecessarily adding complexity. He doesn't have to do step 1 and 2.

You too, are adding steps to the process that are *unnecessary*; You are complicating the process; and that is what I'm pointing out. This is what you don't seem to understand (despite me having made it abundantly clear); because you focus on things that aren't at all relevant to what I'm saying. Essentially, what you're doing is the equivalent of Mechanic B responding to Mechanic A's criticism by accusing mechanic A of not looking at the spinning around three times the proper way. If only he wasn't looking at the spinning around from the perspective of someone looking at someone else spinning around, but as being the one doing the spinning! Mechanic B doesn't realize that that isn't the fucking point.

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.

I'm not trolling at all; anyone who takes a look at my posting history should be able to tell that I frequently mix humor and serious arguments. There's no rule of life that says I can't dress up a valid point with argument or sarcasm.

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

You have on multiple occasions claimed that religion is the best, most efficient way of inspiring and motivating people; and that's why syntheists are trying to create an artificial religion 'stripped of all the other nonsense'. You can't make a grand claim like that and then wave it off by saying you're not trying to convince people when someone calls you on it. When you make big claims, you have to be prepared to back them up. Otherwise you shouldn't make them.

All religions are fake and and all gods are fake. That doesn't make them pointless.

They're not pointless to the people who believe in them... because they actually, you know, believe in them.

They are, however, pointless to you or me.

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.

This is a platitude thrown up only *after* you've spent a significant amount of energy talking up syntheism. If you don't care about the rest of us, if we all need to sort this shit out for ourselves and we're all on our own journey in life; then why not just do your thing and you know, *not* spend so much time telling us about it? It feels very much like the sort of thing a believer (whether it's a believer in a religion, or a diet fad or whatever) says to people after discovering to their dismay that someone didn't just smile and nod their head when taking the brochure but actually started bringing up trouble some arguments.

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

My point is that you should probably take the you from a couple of years ago a little more seriously.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I was making the exact same arguments as you the first two years of Syntheism. But eventually I relented. If you like pithy one-liners, here's one: religion can't tell you what is true. Only what feels true. Since we're primarily emotionally driven beings, this matters. Anybody who thinks that the world's holy texts can tell them anything about how the world really works or anything about science, is wrong. Religion is only about emotional healing and lessons on how we can get along better. Once we've accepted this, religions and religious texts start making sense. More importantly, the concept of God starts making sense. At least it does to me, and to plenty of other Syntheists. So I've gone back to talking about god again.

To a person who thinks that holy texts are a type of scientific text-books there is no amount of explanation that will push them off that pedestal. That's a brick wall if there ever was one. Also... I don't really care. It's boring. I don't mind people not agreeing with me. As far as I'm concerned people are free to believe what the fuck they want. I'm fine with that. If I saw myself as a Syntheistic missionary on a mission to evangelise for Syntheism and tell people the good news about God not existing, I would avoid the term "god" entirely. Just for the very reason you give. But I'm not a Syntheistic missionary, so I don't care. If you don't get it, you don't get it. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Yes, you've mentioned this. You're not doing anything new or special. And again, my argument doesn't change because the point of contention isn't that you're taking existing religions and stripping things away... it's that you're taking religion *at all*.

I have no ambition to do anything new or special, just something that works for me. I'm aware the idea of Syntheism isn't new or unique. We did extensive research before starting out. There are a whole bunch of parallel and fairly similar movements (spiritual atheism) that all took off around the same time as Syntheism, so it's clearly a (international) trend of sorts.

It's an absurd thing to do. It's unnecessary. It convolutes things.

If that's the way you feel I recommend that you aren't a Syntheist. Obviously I don't agree.

You're clearly reading these text like a fundamentalist would. I'm not a fundamentalist. So neither is my interpretation of religious holy texts.

Which again, has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument and doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter HOW you read the text; the point is that the text is at *best*, completely pointless. I don't really care *how* you interpret these texts. Let me try to break it down as simplistically as I can:

Imagine there's two car mechanics working on two different units of the same model of car with the same defect.

Mechanic A's process of determining the problem and fixing the car is to 1) open the hood, 2) looking to see if everything is in order, and upon seeing that the engine is missing a plug, 3) inserts said plug and thereby fixes the problem.

Mechanic B's process of determining the problem and fixing the car is to 1) spins around three times, 2) says 'please let me fix this car' three times, 3) open the hood, 4) looking to see if everything is in order, and upon seeing that the engine is missing a plug, 5) inserts said plug and thereby fixes the problem.

What I'm saying is that Mechanic B is adding steps to the process that are completely and utterly pointless. He is unnecessarily adding complexity. He doesn't have to do step 1 and 2.

You too, are adding steps to the process that are *unnecessary*; You are complicating the process; and that is what I'm pointing out. This is what you don't seem to understand (despite me having made it abundantly clear); because you focus on things that aren't at all relevant to what I'm saying. Essentially, what you're doing is the equivalent of Mechanic B responding to Mechanic A's criticism by accusing mechanic A of not looking at the spinning around three times the proper way. If only he wasn't looking at the spinning around from the perspective of someone looking at someone else spinning around, but as being the one doing the spinning! Mechanic B doesn't realize that that isn't the fucking point.

In what way we are emotionally effected by things is highly subjective. That's as true of religion as anything else. It's also a matter of mindset. Two people can do the exact same activity and be affected by it differently. That said, I think you're just saying all this because you haven't given it a try. If you commit to it, religious ritual and practice works every time. I'm convinced it'll work for you to* Religions have had tens of thousands of years to evolve and perfect their methods of delivery.

I think the problem here is that you think that religion is trying to solve a different problem than what it is they are actually attempting to.

*...with working I mean to touch and motivate you emotionally in some way. Whether or not that effect is desirable or not is another matter.

All religions are fake and and all gods are fake. That doesn't make them pointless.

They're not pointless to the people who believe in them... because they actually, you know, believe in them.

They are, however, pointless to you or me.

Unless you've misunderstood what religions are for.

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.

This is a platitude thrown up only *after* you've spent a significant amount of energy talking up syntheism. If you don't care about the rest of us, if we all need to sort this shit out for ourselves and we're all on our own journey in life; then why not just do your thing and you know, *not* spend so much time telling us about it? It feels very much like the sort of thing a believer (whether it's a believer in a religion, or a diet fad or whatever) says to people after discovering to their dismay that someone didn't just smile and nod their head when taking the brochure but actually started bringing up trouble some arguments.

I think it's cool that something that me and some friends thought up in a Stockholm flat in 2012 has exploded like this, and is now huge. This summer there will be two huge music and arts festivals under the Syntheist umbrella. My guess is that for most of our members Syntheism is synonymous with these quasi-religious festivals. Many who attend are not Syntheists. But there we have our biggest rituals and most elaborate masses. That is cool, whether or not you think Syntheism is pointless. Enough people don't think it's pointless. That is cool. I think it's cool that an established and famous philosopher have written a philosophy book on Syntheism. That is cool, whether or not you agree. It's cool that two scholars are writing their doctoral thesis on aspects of Syntheism. Cool! That's why I made this thread. I just wanted to brag a bit

 

[DrZoidberg]

God

I think you deserve a more in depth explanation than the one I gave. God is an extremely complex concept. I mean as a psychological tool. I don't believe in the supernatural. So an actual god that acts in this world and does stuff is... well. Stupid. It's preposterous and absurd. I doubt I need to explain why on this forum. I believe God is purely a figment of our imagination.

But it's not useless. In every culture God is a symbol and empty projection space where it's members can project their innermost wishes and desires. By studying a culture's gods we can learn a lot about them.

An analogy is science-fiction. Science fiction is often about the here and now, but it's about very sensitive subjects, so they switch out critical elements to disguise this fact. This allows us to discuss topics without getting overly emotional. If you haven't figured it out by now, Planet of the Apes, is primarily about racism, and specifically race relations between blacks and whites in America. The narrative goal was to get white people to relate and empathise to how it is (or was) to be black in a racist white society. It may sound incredible to us, but that whole idea flew completely under the radar of most viewers and reviewers until the sequel Rise of the Planet of the Apes where the ape riots exactly mirrored the 1965 Watts riots scene by scene, street battle by street battle. That was when the penny dropped and the discussion started. But then it was "too late" for white racists. They were now caught in having watched a anti-racist film and empathised with the victims of racism.

Gods have historically been used in the same way (as well as in lots of other stupid ways). We can pretend we're talking about something external and far away when we're in reality talking about ourselves and/or something here and now, and very concrete. But due to the emotionally sensitive nature of the subject it's hard or impossible to talk about it straight. There is a value in that it's unclear whether a god is concrete.

Hiding behind the Bible allows homophobic Christians to voice their homophobia. They don't have to take responsibility for it. It's this external thing that really has this opinion. "Not me". I doubt the Bible has made anybody homophobic. This was an example of a purely negative effect. I merely used this as an example of how the God idea can be used in practice. I personally think that it's healthier for a society to voice all opinions, no matter how cruel or base and let them be available in the public discourse. It's better to be open about racism and homophobia. Unless it's on the table we can't really deal with it. Pretending problems don't exist doesn't make them go away.

When we talk about the ineffability of God it's not that God is so amazing and complex that it is impossible to understand. It's rather that there is nothing to understand. Under the curtain of Oz is an empty space. But there's loads of other uses of gods. Fetishes can be loaded with "magical properties". The placebo effect is real and measurable. This is a way to utilise it. Symbols can be loaded with any emotion and can be set up to be triggered at will. Pavlovian conditioning really works. It's science! All religions mandate time set aside for prayer or meditation. You'd be hard pressed to find a therapist who doesn't recommend some alone time each day. A time for reflection. It's healthy and good for the mind. All these emotional "crutches" allows us to work on ourselves and grow emotionally.

Whether or not religious prophets, holy text authors or practitioners have understood this or do understand this at present does not change the fact that these are among the activities they're doing in practice. There's no way for me to prove this is what is going on. But I suspect that it is.

There's been studies on religion that states that most people are only attracted to religions where the fundamental theology is illogical. For a religion to hit home and find a big audience it has to be nonsensical and preposterous. I'd like to think that what's going on is that, deep down, religious people realise that god isn't real. That it's them creating god.. for some deep seated psychological need they have.

The pagan concept of God is an excellent example. Gaia was the Roman God for mother Earth. She was both an anthropomorphic woman that a man could physically touch, feel and have sex and babies with. At the same time she was the actual physical ground that we walk on. For midsummer, Viking pagans would erect a massive wooden dildo (complete with a scrotum) and ram it down into the ground performing ritualised sex with Mother Earth (Freja).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Midsommarstång.jpg/190px-Midsommarstång.jpg

Theologies are always illogical and absurd by design. Surely, that can't only be a result of stupidity? Are you really so certain there isn't more going on here? Sure, people are stupid. But not that stupid. Obviously you can't be both the ground as well as a woman at the same time. Not even a goddess can make the rules of logic invalid. There's more going on here.

I used to enjoy pointing out the logical flaws in theism, and wallow in my atheistic smugness. But refusing to see god worship in any other way than just a silly idea stopped being fulfilling to me. And even if 99% of all religious really are pathologically retarded who really hold patently absurd faiths for the straight forward reasons, I don't care. The fact remains that there is a sensible way to worship gods

I think there's a value to stick to the same terminology for this as has been throughout history. The fact that I'm a Syntheist means that I believe that all gods are nothing but metaphors and psychological tools. This is what I see on the page when I read any holy book. God saying stuff to people is in reality people saying stuff to other people and hoping they take it seriously... because it's really important.

 

[dystopian]

That said, I think you're just saying all this because you haven't given it a try. If you commit to it, religious ritual and practice works every time. I'm convinced it'll work for you to* Religions have had tens of thousands of years to evolve and perfect their methods of delivery.

And again, you're sounding like a christian evangelist.

Not only do you assume that my disagreement stems from me not having tried your 'thing' (or something similar enough) without having any evidence upon which to base it; which is a classic thing that theists, cultmembers, and fanboys all do to deal with the uncomfortable possibility that someone else actually understands your 'thing' whilst also thinking it's dumb. That can't possibly be, can it!? If they understood it they'd think it was awesome, just like you do!

But then you start sounding like a bad infomercial: "It'll work for you! 100% guaranteed! This product has been tested and perfected, and is recommended by 9 out of 10 random people who've tried it!"

Yet you insist that you're not trying to convince me. Even though you felt the need to state that you're *convinced* it would work for me, in an intellectually insulting manner claiming that the reason I'm not on-board isn't because of any problem with syntheism... no, the problem is with me for not having tried it yet.

I think the problem here is that you think that religion is trying to solve a different problem than what it is they are actually attempting to.

Still sounding like a christian evangelist.

First you ignore all the arguments I made in response to your claims regarding what it is you think religion is trying to solve; arguments which demonstrated quite clearly that I *do* understand what *you* think religion is trying to solve, arguments which also demonstrate that even if I were to accept your basic premise about what it is religion is trying to solve, I *still* wouldn't agree with your conclusions.

And then, because I don't agree with your conclusions, you state that the problem must be because I'm confused.

I'm not confused, sir, you are.

All religions are fake and and all gods are fake. That doesn't make them pointless.

They're not pointless to the people who believe in them... because they actually, you know, believe in them.

They are, however, pointless to you or me.

Unless you've misunderstood what religions are for.

Yes, you're absolutely right. If you've misunderstood what religions are for; then you might well think that making a fake one you don't actually believe in isn't pointless.

I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant; but that is what the words you typed mean in the context you placed them in.

I think it's cool that something that me and some friends thought up in a Stockholm flat in 2012 has exploded like this, and is now huge.

2000 members isn't "huge". It's disturbingly big for what it is; but it's not exactly huge for a movement; especially for one that claims to actually have a point to it. The 'no pants subway ride' movement dwarfs it and I still wouldn't call that huge, and that one *certainly* doesn't have a point.

Cool! That's why I made this thread. I just wanted to brag a bit

Bragging about it is really no different than evangelizing. When a christian tells you how awesome jesus is it's called evangelizing... but you could just as easily call it bragging. When an apple fanboy rants about how awesome his latest apple gadget is, everyone else hears: "god, why aren't you losers going out to buy one already?"

It's the same shit, it's just that one is slightly more socially acceptable than the other.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And again, you're sounding like a christian evangelist.

Not only do you assume that my disagreement stems from me not having tried your 'thing' (or something similar enough) without having any evidence upon which to base it; which is a classic thing that theists, cultmembers, and fanboys all do to deal with the uncomfortable possibility that someone else actually understands your 'thing' whilst also thinking it's dumb. That can't possibly be, can it!? If they understood it they'd think it was awesome, just like you do!

ha ha.. I suggest you read what I wrote more closely. My claim is that religions are all about wrapping their messages in ways to create maximum psychological impact for the member. That's btw why cults are so dangerous. Your claim is that religions are redundant and don't fill any need in society. That they are useless. My claim is that they are the way they are for a reason. That they have a useful function. Religions are a highly effective delivery system to couple ideas with emotional engagement. At no point have I actually suggested you join a cult or a religion. Merely that you pay closer attention to what is going on inside religions. You can play around with the various religious practices at home alone. All the information you need for this is readily available on the Internet. The way you so quickly and easily dismiss all religions suggests to me you haven't studied them enough.

I think religions are more clever than most atheists and secularists give them credit for. That's my only contention. I actually think religion is more clever than most religious people give them credit for. I suspect most religious people are oblivious to how their religion is psychologically functionally designed nor care. Which is a shame IMHO.

I should add that I think that all religions claims about anything supernatural existing is stupid. Just to make that clear. I'm in no way a theist. I'm more along the lines of an atheistic fan-boy of religion.

But then you start sounding like a bad infomercial: "It'll work for you! 100% guaranteed! This product has been tested and perfected, and is recommended by 9 out of 10 random people who've tried it!"

Yet you insist that you're not trying to convince me. Even though you felt the need to state that you're *convinced* it would work for me, in an intellectually insulting manner claiming that the reason I'm not on-board isn't because of any problem with syntheism... no, the problem is with me for not having tried it yet.

I think the problem here is that you think that religion is trying to solve a different problem than what it is they are actually attempting to.

Still sounding like a christian evangelist.

Because, fundamentally, humans are all pretty similar in how we work psychologically. For all our advances in technology our brains have the same design today as they had 30 000 years ago. We all fall for the same lame tricks. Are as easily duped by cleverly presented bullshit arguments. And we are all about as easily sucked into brainwashing cults if they catch us at the wrong moment. There's plenty of research to back all of this up. Religions are entire institutions built up around giving emotional comfort and affirm us emotionally. That's why I think it'll work on you to. They've certainly had the practice. I think it's naive to the extreme to think you're immune.

First you ignore all the arguments I made in response to your claims regarding what it is you think religion is trying to solve; arguments which demonstrated quite clearly that I *do* understand what *you* think religion is trying to solve, arguments which also demonstrate that even if I were to accept your basic premise about what it is religion is trying to solve, I *still* wouldn't agree with your conclusions.

And then, because I don't agree with your conclusions, you state that the problem must be because I'm confused.

I'm not confused, sir, you are.

I ignored the irrelevant arguments you made. I get the impression you and me are having two slightly different discussions. So you keep missing the point. And I'm clearly not understanding why you think your arguments are relevant. Yes, there's a lot of confusion going around in our discussion.

All religions are fake and and all gods are fake. That doesn't make them pointless.

They're not pointless to the people who believe in them... because they actually, you know, believe in them.

They are, however, pointless to you or me.

That doesn't make any sense. Either a religion has a function or it doesn't. Religious belief can't change the law of nature. God doesn't start existing if I convert to Christianity. The Christian idea of the omnipotent God is just plain wrong. So if a religions job isn't to generate truth and or God, then what is it? Or to use your language when is a religion not "pointless" and why? I'm just trying to figure out what you're arguing for (or against).

 

[dystopian]

Your claim is that religions are redundant and don't fill any need in society.

Correct and wrong. I *have* stated that they are redundant. I have *not* stated they don't fill any need, merely that, pursuant to my statement that they are redundant, that the are other ways to fill that need.

That they are useless.

I have not, in fact, stated this. I think *you* may want to read what people write a bit more closely. What I've stated is that they are useless to someone who doesn't *believe* in them.

My claim is that they are the way they are for a reason. That they have a useful function.

Nonetheless, the fact that there are so many atheists in the world who manage to function perfectly well without any sort of religion, immediately demolishes the notion that religions are in any way *necessary*.

Religions are a highly effective delivery system to couple ideas with emotional engagement.

Something we don't actually need more of. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The way you so quickly and easily dismiss all religions suggests to me you haven't studied them enough.

And yet again, you're sounding exactly like any other generic theist evangelist. Once again, the problem couldn't possibly be with what you're peddling; no the reason I dismiss the things you hold dear must surely be because I haven't studied it enough.

Of course, in reality; I *have* studied religions... and have done so quite extensively by average measures, over the course of several decades. That is of course also part of *why* I dismiss them.

Because, fundamentally, humans are all pretty similar in how we work psychologically. For all our advances in technology our brains have the same design today as they had 30 000 years ago. We all fall for the same lame tricks. Are as easily duped by cleverly presented bullshit arguments. And we are all about as easily sucked into brainwashing cults if they catch us at the wrong moment. There's plenty of research to back all of this up. Religions are entire institutions built up around giving emotional comfort and affirm us emotionally. That's why I think it'll work on you to. They've certainly had the practice. I think it's naive to the extreme to think you're immune.

...is this for real?

You're saying that the reason you sound like a christian evangelist... is because people are basically stupid and that they can if caught in the wrong moment be easily sucked into brainwashing cults? Is this a parody? Are you literally saying you're using these lame generic evangelist tactics in the hopes that someone reading this is in the wrong place and therefore vulnerable to the lame generic evangelist tactics? Because that's what it reads like, and it doesn't make you seem like a very nice person. Of course you didn't mean that. Probably. You probably meant to say that the reason you insulted my intelligence is because you genuinely believe that your religion will work on me because... people are basically stupid and religions prey on this stupidity and therefore your religion would work on me too... which doesn't just make you seem like a not very nice person; it also doesn't particularly endear me to your religion either.

But by all means, keep digging deeper.

I ignored the irrelevant arguments you made. I get the impression you and me are having two slightly different discussions. So you keep missing the point.

That's just your cognitive dissonance at work. Your brain isn't allowing you to consider the possibility that I'm actually talking about the exact same things you are, because to do so would endanger their 'self-evident' nature. Thus you reject my arguments as irrelevant. Like I've been pointing out, in this sense you're pretty much par with the christian evangelist who can't comprehend the fact that atheists understand their religion just fine, and therefore blames our atheism on our hatred of god or our ignorance. You're doing the exact same thing. For the exact same reasons.

That doesn't make any sense. Either a religion has a function or it doesn't.

It is this statement that doesn't make sense. I find it perplexing that you would spend so much time and energy on trying to manipulate your own psychology by creating a fake religion to inspire and motivate yourself... but seem incapable of understanding the complexities of psychology enough to understand that systems that influence human psychology don't fit into a simple binary "useful" or "not useful" dynamic.

You are familiar with the placebo effect, yes?

It is useful for someone with the flu to ingest a sugarpill if he believes it is actually flu-medication.

It is NOT useful for someone with the flu to ingest a sugarpill if he knows it's a sugarpill.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Correct and wrong. I *have* stated that they are redundant. I have *not* stated they don't fill any need, merely that, pursuant to my statement that they are redundant, that the are other ways to fill that need.

Unless you can be bothered explaining what you mean, there's no way this discussion can continue.

That they are useless.

I have not, in fact, stated this. I think *you* may want to read what people write a bit more closely. What I've stated is that they are useless to someone who doesn't *believe* in them.

I'm not going to guess what you mean by this.

My claim is that they are the way they are for a reason. That they have a useful function.

Nonetheless, the fact that there are so many atheists in the world who manage to function perfectly well without any sort of religion, immediately demolishes the notion that religions are in any way *necessary*.

We are in complete agreement. I never claimed they were necessary. Merely that they can be a positive influence, which you've so far been unable to address.

Religions are a highly effective delivery system to couple ideas with emotional engagement.

Something we don't actually need more of. Quite the contrary, in fact.

This is another statement that makes no sense at all in this context. I have no idea what you mean by this.

The way you so quickly and easily dismiss all religions suggests to me you haven't studied them enough.

And yet again, you're sounding exactly like any other generic theist evangelist. Once again, the problem couldn't possibly be with what you're peddling; no the reason I dismiss the things you hold dear must surely be because I haven't studied it enough.

Of course, in reality; I *have* studied religions... and have done so quite extensively by average measures, over the course of several decades. That is of course also part of *why* I dismiss them.

Again.. no clue what you're talking about. This is too vague.

Because, fundamentally, humans are all pretty similar in how we work psychologically. For all our advances in technology our brains have the same design today as they had 30 000 years ago. We all fall for the same lame tricks. Are as easily duped by cleverly presented bullshit arguments. And we are all about as easily sucked into brainwashing cults if they catch us at the wrong moment. There's plenty of research to back all of this up. Religions are entire institutions built up around giving emotional comfort and affirm us emotionally. That's why I think it'll work on you to. They've certainly had the practice. I think it's naive to the extreme to think you're immune.

...is this for real?

You're saying that the reason you sound like a christian evangelist... is because people are basically stupid and that they can if caught in the wrong moment be easily sucked into brainwashing cults? Is this a parody? Are you literally saying you're using these lame generic evangelist tactics in the hopes that someone reading this is in the wrong place and therefore vulnerable to the lame generic evangelist tactics? Because that's what it reads like, and it doesn't make you seem like a very nice person. Of course you didn't mean that. Probably. '

Ok, here's an analogy to make it more clear what I mean. Imagine there's a war between two nations. Nation A, the atheists. And nation B the religionists. Nation A decides to not use any weapons in the war because they feel that their superior ideology and powers of reason should be enough to win. They don't. And that's the status quo in the world today. Secularism isn't losing. But they're not wining either. I think that deserves a better explanation than that all religious people are stupid. Which I don't believe btw.

You probably meant to say that the reason you insulted my intelligence is because you genuinely believe that your religion will work on me because... people are basically stupid and religions prey on this stupidity and therefore your religion would work on me too... which doesn't just make you seem like a not very nice person; it also doesn't particularly endear me to your religion either.

But by all means, keep digging deeper.

ha ha.. you're just attributing stuff to me I never said and feel insulted by it. I think you should apologise to yourself for insulting yourself. It's the gentlemanly thing to do.

I don't think the methods of religion works on people because they're stupid. I think they work on all people because those methods work on everybody. They're highly effective.

I ignored the irrelevant arguments you made. I get the impression you and me are having two slightly different discussions. So you keep missing the point.

That's just your cognitive dissonance at work. Your brain isn't allowing you to consider the possibility that I'm actually talking about the exact same things you are, because to do so would endanger their 'self-evident' nature. Thus you reject my arguments as irrelevant. Like I've been pointing out, in this sense you're pretty much par with the christian evangelist who can't comprehend the fact that atheists understand their religion just fine, and therefore blames our atheism on our hatred of god or our ignorance. You're doing the exact same thing. For the exact same reasons.

It's stuff like this I've been ignoring. I have no idea where any of this comes from? I have no idea what you're responding to or why? What makes you think that description applies to me?

That doesn't make any sense. Either a religion has a function or it doesn't.

It is this statement that doesn't make sense. I find it perplexing that you would spend so much time and energy on trying to manipulate your own psychology by creating a fake religion to inspire and motivate yourself... but seem incapable of understanding the complexities of psychology enough to understand that systems that influence human psychology don't fit into a simple binary "useful" or "not useful" dynamic.

You are the one treating all religion as simplistic and binary. Not me.

Like I said... it seems to me that we're having two different discussions. Either you make an effort explaining yourself or I'm done.

 

[dystopian]

Unless you can be bothered explaining what you mean, there's no way this discussion can continue.

This whole thread has been almost nothing *but* me explaining it. Once again, the explanation is: Religions may fill a need for the people who believe in them; *however* as the widespread existence of perfectly happy and well-adjusted atheists demonstrates, this need can also be filled by other means (means which do NOT require the invention of a fake religion). These alternative means are, by virtue of the fact that they do not include the demonstrably unnecessary step of religious belief, more efficient than religions are as eliminating steps from any process while still achieving the same result is the very definition of efficiency.

This is as simple an explanation as one can possibly give; and I have given it to you more than once already so stop pretending that I'm not explaining anything to you instead.

I'm not going to guess what you mean by this.

And you don't have to, because I have *repeatedly* in this thread explained exactly what I mean by it. I did so even in the last post when I pointed out the placebo effect. Don't play dumb.

We are in complete agreement. I never claimed they were necessary. Merely that they can be a positive influence, which you've so far been unable to address.

I have repeatedly addressed that. In fact, the statement you are responding to itself even addresses it by demonstrating that not only are they not necessary in general; but they aren't necessary to produce the positive influence you're so excited by. Atheists generally manage to be just as happy and well-adjusted as theists/syntheists (or even more so) are, somehow they've found a way to accomplish this without the "positive influence" of religion (I should once again stress that you have not demonstrated these positive influences are in fact due to religion itself, as opposed to community reinforcement). As I have also explained, the alternative means that atheists seem to get the same positive effects through are also more efficient than religion (real or fake), since these alternative means do not include superfluous steps (like pretend gods) in the process.

Religions are a highly effective delivery system to couple ideas with emotional engagement.

Something we don't actually need more of. Quite the contrary, in fact.

This is another statement that makes no sense at all in this context. I have no idea what you mean by this.

Cognitive dissonance at work again? It makes perfect sense in this or any other context; and it is hard to imagine that you seriously have no idea what I meant by it. Yes, religions manage to connect emotional engagement to ideas. That's why they're so effective at fucking things up for us. Emotional engagement to ideas is what produces idealogues and fundamentalists; not a thing we need more of. It also introduces selection bias by convincing people (such as yourself) that ideas are worthwhile because they make them feel good... which is *not* a very useful metric to determine the validity of an idea.

Again.. no clue what you're talking about. This is too vague.

Riiight.

1) You don't like the fact that I don't agree with your conclusions, and thus blame it on me not having studied religions.
2) I respond by pointing out that, actually, I *have* studied religions, and that's why I don't agree with you.
3) You respond by implying you're mentally deficient because I'm being "vague" and you can't understand what I'm saying.
4) I respond by mocking you in the recap, thereby taking away all doubt as the fact that what I meant was "you were being ridiculous in what you said".

Ok, here's an analogy to make it more clear what I mean. Imagine there's a war between two nations. Nation A, the atheists. And nation B the religionists. Nation A decides to not use any weapons in the war because they feel that their superior ideology and powers of reason should be enough to win. They don't. And that's the status quo in the world today. Secularism isn't losing. But they're not wining either.

First of all, Nation A couldn't be "the atheists", because a nation consisting of atheists would presumably have enough intelligent people in positions of power who know that 1) Atheism is not an idealogy, and 2) you don't win wars through rhetoric.

Second of all, at no point did your analogy touch upon what we were talking about in any meaningful sense. We were talking about your religious thingamajig working on me because people in general fall for lame tricks (kind of a working definition of stupidity if ever there was one) and have done so for thousands of years. I responded by essentially trying to explain to you that even if that's true; it's *not* an argument FOR religion, but rather the exact opposite because hey, it makes religion look like the heroin that the drug addicts keep succumbing to. But I don't know, maybe that's really an argument FOR heroin? After all, if there was nothing to it, people wouldn't keep getting addicted to it.

Also, whether or not secularism is "winning" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not religion is valid or useful for the reasons you've previously stated. Yes, people keep falling for religion's petty tricks and lures. They keep falling for them for a number of reasons (primarily demographic); but this in no way lends credence to the argument that religion is a particularly useful tool. The staying power of an idea is not related to its validity.

And of course, it is simply not true that secularism isn't "winning" (for lack of a better word). Even in the most religious places in the world today, secularism is still gaining traction. Atheism is on the rise even in places like Saudi Arabia. The percentage of non-believers of the world population *continues* to grow at the expense of the religious numbers. At the same time, countries *continue* to adopt increasingly secular laws and traditions over time. This is not a trend that has been stopped or reversed, contrary to whatever feelings you may have whenever you hear a media report about religious violence somewhere or another.

I think that deserves a better explanation than that all religious people are stupid. Which I don't believe btw.

Falling for what you yourself called "the same lame tricks", is an example of stupidity. You can't really very well call it smart, can you? No, it is a stupid thing to do. Doing a stupid thing, makes one stupid. Ergo, religious people are stupid. That doesn't mean they're stupid *all* the time. And it doesn't mean that someone who isn't religious doesn't at times do stupid things. But let's not pretend that the reason you delivered for why you think religion would work on me is an example of *stupidity*.

ha ha.. you're just attributing stuff to me I never said and feel insulted by it.

I don't think the methods of religion works on people because they're stupid.

No, that is actually what you said. Oh, I know you didn't use the word "stupid", but it is the only way one can interpret what you said. After all, *this* is what you said:

"We all fall for the same lame tricks. Are as easily duped by cleverly presented bullshit arguments."

Falling for lame tricks, being duped by bullshit arguments (however cleverly presented), are under any definition; examples of stupidity. By stating you think this will work on someone, you are unequivocally telling them that they are stupid enough for it to work on them. Now I'm not particularly insulted by it; I'm just pointing out that however else you represent it, it *is* in fact an insult.

I think they work on all people because those methods work on everybody.

But clearly they *don't*; or else there would be no such thing as an atheist.

It's stuff like this I've been ignoring. I have no idea where any of this comes from? I have no idea what you're responding to or why? What makes you think that description applies to me?

You have no idea where any of this comes from? Even though I explicitly explained it to you? Do you understand the delicious irony of responding to a post in which I explain in detail to you why you're exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance, by asking me why I think you're exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance? If the answer to that question is no, it makes the irony all the more solid.

You are the one treating all religion as simplistic and binary. Not me.

Am I? All I've stated that once you eliminate the act of belief, they stop holding the value they are claimed to hold. That is not treating them as simplistic or binary; that's simply acknowledging that they've ceased to matter in the new context that is created by stripping belief away. Is it simplistic and binary (get it?) to say that a computer loses its purpose when there's no electricity to power it? How about stating that a car loses its purpose when it no longer has an engine? Too simplistic? Too binary for you?

It seems pretty obvious what I was explaining to you. Religion works because one believes in it; it is a placebo effect. Once you strip that belief away, it becomes meaningless. This is at the very core of our disagreement; and for all your protests that you think we're having two different discussions and that you don't understand my explanations, I think you do in fact understand them just fine... you seem to grasp the English language well enough to hold a conversation after all, so it would seem unlikely you can not grasp at least the basics of my explanations even if the particulars escape you. Then again, I don't see what's so difficult to understand about "religion = placebo effect > therefore syntheism's arguments = nullified by removal of religion's primary mechanism, the absence of which eliminates the base assumptions that lay at the heart of the arguments." It's not really that hard.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This whole thread has been almost nothing *but* me explaining it. Once again, the explanation is: Religions may fill a need for the people who believe in them;

Since we're just continually talking past each other this needs to be clarified. What need do you hypothesize that religions may fill in the practitioners lives? Why is belief a prerequisite? Belief in what are you implying?

*however* as the widespread existence of perfectly happy and well-adjusted atheists demonstrates, this need can also be filled by other means

How is this relevant to this discussion? I'd seriously would like to know. This is like saying that why get married when you can have perfectly good sex with prostitutes. The two activities have zero relation. They're not in conflict, threaten each other or negate each other. You can do both at the same time. If it's possible to enjoy music as well as enjoying watching movies then why not it being possible that an atheist can dabble in religious practice once in a while? I'm not sure what religion means to you? It's like going to the gym. When you're not at the gym you're not training/religioning. Yoga is a great example of a religious practice that is practiced by all manner of people with all manner of beliefs and what-not. I'd call Yoga the perfect example of Syntheistic religious practice in action. Yoga is unquestionably religion, as well as unquestionably beneficial to practice.

What it means to be religious and do religion seems to be very different for you and me.

(means which do NOT require the invention of a fake religion). These alternative means are, by virtue of the fact that they do not include the demonstrably unnecessary step of religious belief, more efficient than religions are as eliminating steps from any process while still achieving the same result is the very definition of efficiency.

This is as simple an explanation as one can possibly give; and I have given it to you more than once already so stop pretending that I'm not explaining anything to you instead.

Your use of the term fake religion seems to imply there's such a thing as a genuine religion. Do you have an example of one such religion? What is it that makes it genuine? I'm just trying to understand how you think about religion and how you define it. What makes Syntheism a fake religion? Where does the fakeness come from?

I'm not going to guess what you mean by this.

And you don't have to, because I have *repeatedly* in this thread explained exactly what I mean by it. I did so even in the last post when I pointed out the placebo effect. Don't play dumb.

It seems that I'm to dumb then.

You're wrong about the placebo effect. Being fooled is not required or mandatory for the placebo effect to take effect. All it requires is that you believe something to be efficacious for the placebo effect to come into action. Knowledge about and belief in the placebo effect is enough to make whatever fetish is employed to work. Yes, even for the hardcore sceptic and militant atheist.

We are in complete agreement. I never claimed they were necessary. Merely that they can be a positive influence, which you've so far been unable to address.

I have repeatedly addressed that. In fact, the statement you are responding to itself even addresses it by demonstrating that not only are they not necessary in general; but they aren't necessary to produce the positive influence you're so excited by. Atheists generally manage to be just as happy and well-adjusted as theists/syntheists (or even more so) are, somehow they've found a way to accomplish this without the "positive influence" of religion (I should once again stress that you have not demonstrated these positive influences are in fact due to religion itself, as opposed to community reinforcement). As I have also explained, the alternative means that atheists seem to get the same positive effects through are also more efficient than religion (real or fake), since these alternative means do not include superfluous steps (like pretend gods) in the process.

You haven't addressed it once, and yet again you fail to in this paragraph.

As for positive influences. You mention one in the above paragraph. Community reinforcement. That's one positive influence of religion. A pretty major benefit. But there's yoga. Meditation. There's plenty of studies to show that daily prayer/meditation/contemplation/introspection is beneficial for mental well-being. A religion can give a structure for it. No, the religion isn't necessary. But the point of a religion is to be a collection of tried and tested practices that the practitioner can pick and chose from as if was a menu. Yoga is a religious practice that is beneficial both physically and mentally. Sacredness and making things sacred is a very handy mental tool to keep important stuff in focus. Sounds banal. But I played around with it, and it works wonders for me. There's community. There's a guy in the Stockholm Syntheist congregation who suffers from a very serious depression. He has literally trouble getting out of bed. He joined us to try and see if joining us could help him. If I trust him Syntheism has been extremely beneficial for him. He has made going to Sunday mass sacred to him. And it helps him get out of bed, and he can live off the "energy" (the the lack of a better term) he gets from the congregation a couple of days, making him function better. I realise now that I've barely scratched the surface. I can keep going for quite a while. There's already a very long list of unquestionably positive things the Stockholm Syntheists have pulled off in it's short existence.

All of this is ample evidence that you're... well...wrong. Could we do all this anyway, without calling it a religion? Sure. But it is a religion. Any non-profit voluntary organisation built up around the mental well-being of it's members is by definition a religion. Why call it anything else?

Cognitive dissonance at work again? It makes perfect sense in this or any other context; and it is hard to imagine that you seriously have no idea what I meant by it. Yes, religions manage to connect emotional engagement to ideas. That's why they're so effective at fucking things up for us. Emotional engagement to ideas is what produces idealogues and fundamentalists; not a thing we need more of. It also introduces selection bias by convincing people (such as yourself) that ideas are worthwhile because they make them feel good... which is *not* a very useful metric to determine the validity of an idea.

I don't agree at all. It also makes for a very dangerous world. People are more or less intellectual and sceptically minded. There's a lot of more emotionally driven people. Who in my judgement are often more well adjusted mentally and are more socially gifted than us nerds. This is just a highly subjective observation on my part. The more emotionally driven people are total suckers for any message wrapped up in emotional engagement. I'm a career guy who have rubbed shoulders up and down the corporate ladder. All corporations are modelled as religions and use just the same tricks. Not only as advertising to peddle their wears. But to keep their employees in line. It's everything from company slogans to attending obligatory brain-washing sessions. Our society is completely and utterly awash with religion-type movements.

I may be exaggerating now, but I see one little tiny group of liberal sceptics who refuse to use these methods because they think it's wrong, an affront to the rational mind and unsporting somehow. When everybody else is doing it. And why are the rest of humanity doing it? Because that's how humans are wired to respond. It really doesn't matter that there exists atheists who don't need religion, or find it a nuisance. Good for them. But how about letting the atheists who do think it's worth their while do it, and lay off judging?

1) You don't like the fact that I don't agree with your conclusions, and thus blame it on me not having studied religions.
2) I respond by pointing out that, actually, I *have* studied religions, and that's why I don't agree with you.
3) You respond by implying you're mentally deficient because I'm being "vague" and you can't understand what I'm saying.
4) I respond by mocking you in the recap, thereby taking away all doubt as the fact that what I meant was "you were being ridiculous in what you said".

It was a speculation based on the fact that you seem completely clueless about religions. I'm still not convinced you aren't.

Ok, here's an analogy to make it more clear what I mean. Imagine there's a war between two nations. Nation A, the atheists. And nation B the religionists. Nation A decides to not use any weapons in the war because they feel that their superior ideology and powers of reason should be enough to win. They don't. And that's the status quo in the world today. Secularism isn't losing. But they're not wining either.

First of all, Nation A couldn't be "the atheists", because a nation consisting of atheists would presumably have enough intelligent people in positions of power who know that 1) Atheism is not an idealogy, and 2) you don't win wars through rhetoric.

Second of all, at no point did your analogy touch upon what we were talking about in any meaningful sense. We were talking about your religious thingamajig working on me because people in general fall for lame tricks (kind of a working definition of stupidity if ever there was one) and have done so for thousands of years. I responded by essentially trying to explain to you that even if that's true; it's *not* an argument FOR religion, but rather the exact opposite because hey, it makes religion look like the heroin that the drug addicts keep succumbing to. But I don't know, maybe that's really an argument FOR heroin? After all, if there was nothing to it, people wouldn't keep getting addicted to it.

Also, whether or not secularism is "winning" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not religion is valid or useful for the reasons you've previously stated. Yes, people keep falling for religion's petty tricks and lures. They keep falling for them for a number of reasons (primarily demographic); but this in no way lends credence to the argument that religion is a particularly useful tool. The staying power of an idea is not related to its validity.

And of course, it is simply not true that secularism isn't "winning" (for lack of a better word). Even in the most religious places in the world today, secularism is still gaining traction. Atheism is on the rise even in places like Saudi Arabia. The percentage of non-believers of the world population *continues* to grow at the expense of the religious numbers. At the same time, countries *continue* to adopt increasingly secular laws and traditions over time. This is not a trend that has been stopped or reversed, contrary to whatever feelings you may have whenever you hear a media report about religious violence somewhere or another.

Ok, bad analogy. The war metaphor seemed to be too loaded for you understand what I was talking about. It's not an actual war. It was a comment on how secular movements are total crap at engaging people (ie worse than religions). If you question this fact I'd say you are utterly and totally delusional.

"We all fall for the same lame tricks. Are as easily duped by cleverly presented bullshit arguments."

Falling for lame tricks, being duped by bullshit arguments (however cleverly presented), are under any definition; examples of stupidity. By stating you think this will work on someone, you are unequivocally telling them that they are stupid enough for it to work on them. Now I'm not particularly insulted by it; I'm just pointing out that however else you represent it, it *is* in fact an insult.

Sorry, you find the limitations of the human mind insulting. Don't blame me. I didn't design it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

I think they work on all people because those methods work on everybody.

But clearly they *don't*; or else there would be no such thing as an atheist.

Also.. in this context... total nonsense. What does atheism have to do with a religions practices being able to engage people emotionally? You seem awfully confused regarding what the topic is.

I'll give you an example of a very common religious activity that has benefited me immensely.

There's a reoccuring activity in the mass of the Syntheist congregation where we sing together. I'd never sang before this. I'm totally shit at singing and I usually hate it. But the way we do it we sing together in harmonies and... well.. I can't tell how shit I am and I enjoy it. Of everything I've tried after joining the Syntheist congregation this is the activity that has had the most powerful impact on me. it's hard to describe. But it very effectively helps against anxiety. I can literally feel my shoulders drop as I'm singing. I'm not a particularly high-strung or anxious person. But it is clearly beneficial to me. Singing like this together with the congregation is more effective than singing alone. It does work when alone also. But not at all as effective when I'm in the group.

Singing or chanting together is extremely common in all religions. I'm willing to bet money on it being just as beneficial for all of the members of all the other religions as it is for me. It'll probably work on you to. Even though I suspect you'll do your best to fight it I'm sure people who join choirs do it because it makes them happy and feel good. For the exact same reason. Regardless if they're theist or not.

I have no clue how singing together to relieve anxiety has any bearing on whether or not somebody becomes an theist or atheist. I'd put money on this to as being totally and utterly irrelevant. yet still... a very common religious practice.

If I wouldn't be part of Syntheism I can't see myself organising group chanting and singing. It's a bit too much work to organise it just to do this. I'd feel like a total dork. I'm not cool enough to be relaxed about it. I like that it's built in as a part of the Syntheist mass experience, as a five minute segment. It's a package with lots of great stuff. The singing being part of it. Once a week for five minutes is a good level for me. Any more and I doubt it'd be beneficial nor to my enjoyment. So I won't be joining a choir any time soon. Basically... without Syntheism I doubt I'd do any group singing in spite of me enjoying it and it being beneficial for me.

It's stuff like this I've been ignoring. I have no idea where any of this comes from? I have no idea what you're responding to or why? What makes you think that description applies to me?

You have no idea where any of this comes from? Even though I explicitly explained it to you? Do you understand the delicious irony of responding to a post in which I explain in detail to you why you're exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance, by asking me why I think you're exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance? If the answer to that question is no, it makes the irony all the more solid.

You still haven't explained it. So we're nowhere on this point. Irony aside.

You are the one treating all religion as simplistic and binary. Not me.

Am I? All I've stated that once you eliminate the act of belief, they stop holding the value they are claimed to hold. That is not treating them as simplistic or binary; that's simply acknowledging that they've ceased to matter in the new context that is created by stripping belief away. Is it simplistic and binary (get it?) to say that a computer loses its purpose when there's no electricity to power it? How about stating that a car loses its purpose when it no longer has an engine? Too simplistic? Too binary for you?

It seems pretty obvious what I was explaining to you. Religion works because one believes in it; it is a placebo effect. Once you strip that belief away, it becomes meaningless. This is at the very core of our disagreement; and for all your protests that you think we're having two different discussions and that you don't understand my explanations, I think you do in fact understand them just fine... you seem to grasp the English language well enough to hold a conversation after all, so it would seem unlikely you can not grasp at least the basics of my explanations even if the particulars escape you. Then again, I don't see what's so difficult to understand about "religion = placebo effect > therefore syntheism's arguments = nullified by removal of religion's primary mechanism, the absence of which eliminates the base assumptions that lay at the heart of the arguments." It's not really that hard.

This is what I mean with you seeing religion as binary. For you religion only seems to be about belief. And once the belief in God is gone it makes all the religious practices worthless. My argument (and why I was in the group that started Syntheism) is that God and the worship of God is the least important part of a religion. God is merely a symbol and an excuse to get to do all the other stuff together. An important feature of all religions is that there is nothing holding the group of people together other than this one shared symbol and identity. It help keep the discussions on the most basic and fundamental aspects of the human condition.

I don't think it's crazy at all to propose that God was once upon a time invented as an empty symbol simply as way to allow people to practice religion together. There's been quite little theological speculation on the nature of god or how god did all of what he did. Even if God is omnipotent, there must have been some sort of mechanic by which God did it. Sure, there's loads of books written on it. But if we take all the religious books ever written the amount that speculates on the nature of God is almost infinitesimal compared to the rest of it. Most of it is about rules of conduct, and how we should treat each other. Religious people don't seem to care that much about God. They're fine with God being abstract and ineffable. If I was a theist that would annoy me to no end.

For me religion is a huge and complex collection of practices created for our mental and social well being, as well as methods to create social cohesion. A massive smorgasbord of stuff to pick or reject. I see it as everything but simple or binary. So I'm not sure how you made that judgement?

 

[dystopian]

Since we're just continually talking past each other this needs to be clarified. What need do you hypothesize that religions may fill in the practitioners lives? Why is belief a prerequisite? Belief in what are you implying?

Religions fill the need to have a structured and ordered worldview; one in which the theist is assured of his place in the order of things. It provides a sense of 'justice', that there is a purpose to their existence. It allows the theist to largely ignore the difficult kind of thoughts and doubts which lead to realizations and insights that can be distressing (such as living in an unfair and uncaring universe). Religion fills the need of providing purpose, guidance, and a minimum of existential stress. However, it can only provide these things so long as the theist actually *believes*; once one takes away the central claims of a religion, the rest falls apart like a house of cards. Religion can't provide one with the certainty of purpose and the absence of existential doubt when one doesn't believe religion to be true in the first place.

How is this relevant to this discussion? I'd seriously would like to know. This is like saying that why get married when you can have perfectly good sex with prostitutes. The two activities have zero relation. They're not in conflict, threaten each other or negate each other. You can do both at the same time.

False equivalency. You are proposing religion (syntheism) as a mechanism for a specific purpose. I am pointing out that said purpose can be better achieved through other means. A proper analogy would be to say that a car (atheism) and a horse (religion) both serve the purpose of getting you from one place to another; however, it makes no sense to use *both* of them for this purpose at the same time. Once you have the much more effective car, the horse loses its relevance as a means of getting from one place to another.

If it's possible to enjoy music as well as enjoying watching movies then why not it being possible that an atheist can dabble in religious practice once in a while?

Because religious practice without religious belief is meaningless. And because once again, you're making a false equivalency. Music and movies are both forms of entertainment; there is indeed no reason why one can't enjoy multiple forms of entertainment. However, religious practice is not a form of entertainment; its purpose is entirely dictated by the religion to which the practice belongs: and the primary definition of religion states that it is a collection of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of superhuman agency. Since you have established that syntheism does not accept such beliefs as being true, syntheism is not and can not be a religion: as such, the purpose of the religious practice is lost.

An atheist dabbling in religious practice is equivalent to a car mechanic practicing his craft on a rock.

Yoga is a great example of a religious practice that is practiced by all manner of people with all manner of beliefs and what-not.

Yoga without the beliefs behind it is just stretching your legs. We call that physical exercise, not yoga.

Your use of the term fake religion seems to imply there's such a thing as a genuine religion. Do you have an example of one such religion? What is it that makes it genuine? I'm just trying to understand how you think about religion and how you define it. What makes Syntheism a fake religion? Where does the fakeness come from?

The fact that it doesn't conform to the primary definition of being a religion.

You're wrong about the placebo effect. Being fooled is not required or mandatory for the placebo effect to take effect. All it requires is that you believe something to be efficacious for the placebo effect to come into action. Knowledge about and belief in the placebo effect is enough to make whatever fetish is employed to work. Yes, even for the hardcore sceptic and militant atheist.

This is simply not the case. This is a misconception based on a couple of studies that make this claim. However, what is often overlooked by people who cite these studies as evidence for the argument that placebo's work regardless of whether or not you believe them, is the fact that the researchers still lied to the people who knew they were on the placebo's, essentially nullifying the conclusion. They told the people on the placebo's that "yes, you're on a sugarpill", but then they also told them things like, "this will actually help because it will train your body to handle pain better". So what they really did was replace one placebo (the sugarpill) with another placebo (the assurances of a medical professional that they'll still get a benefit). As such, it is not the case that the placebo effect will work on you regardless of whether or not you believe in it: you still require belief, whether its a belief in the sugarpill being a real drug, or belief in the doctor's claim that being on a placebo will train your body to better withstand pain. Belief remains the core component.

We are in complete agreement. I never claimed they were necessary. Merely that they can be a positive influence, which you've so far been unable to address.

As for positive influences. You mention one in the above paragraph. Community reinforcement. That's one positive influence of religion.

I think you may not understand what community reinforcement means. Community reinforcement is not itself a positive influence; it's something that CAN lead to positive influence... but very often does the exact opposite.

There's plenty of studies to show that daily prayer/meditation/contemplation/introspection is beneficial for mental well-being.

Actually, there aren't. Most such studies are poorly constructed and don't meet high enough scientific standards to be taken seriously; only a relative handful of studies do manage to pass muster, but are largely inconclusive or do not show a very significant benefit. Not that it particularly matters for the purposes of the argument, since meditation is not and never has been a specifically religious practice. Referring to it as a religious practice is like saying that clothes are a religious practice because religions often have funny hats.

But the point of a religion is to be a collection of tried and tested practices that the practitioner can pick and chose from as if was a menu.

This is absurd. No, the point of religion is not and never has been to provide its adherents with a "menu" to pick and choose from. Unless you mean: "Here's the menu of our religion sir, feel free to pick and choose from the dazzling number of one options, because if you want any other options you can go fuck off to those heretics next door who follow the wrong fucking religion."

Yoga is a religious practice that is beneficial both physically and mentally.

Like I already said, Yoga without the religion is just physical exercise; not religious practice.

All of this is ample evidence that you're... well...wrong. Could we do all this anyway, without calling it a religion? Sure.

"All this is evidence that you're wrong. But you know, here's why you're entirely right."

But it is a religion. Any non-profit voluntary organisation built up around the mental well-being of it's members is by definition a religion.

What.

On what fucking planet is *that* the definition of religion? Because it certainly isn't this one. Do you have any idea how many organizations would suddenly qualify as a religion if we maintained that absurd definition?

I may be exaggerating now, but I see one little tiny group of liberal sceptics who refuse to use these methods because they think it's wrong, an affront to the rational mind and unsporting somehow.

What I see is one tiny little group of former skeptics who complain about religion, but then model themselves as a religion while patting themselves on the back about how they're not doing the same thing as the other religions.

But how about letting the atheists who do think it's worth their while do it, and lay off judging?

For the same reason that I judge people who keep on insisting that the word 'literally' means 'not literally but figuratively', people who insist that Russia didn't invade Crimea, people who don't see a problem with not vaccinating their kids, people who insist that we never landed on the moon, or people who at any point in time tell me 'well that's just like, your opinion man.'

It was a speculation based on the fact that you seem completely clueless about religions. I'm still not convinced you aren't.

Oh joy, let us devolve this conversation even more by accusing each other of being clueless about religion some more.

"Why, sir, you aren't even familiar with the Arminian Synod of Dort!"
"Hah! But the only Veda you've heard of is the Rigveda!"
"Why you scallywag, you probably confuse the Prose Edda for a religious document instead of a poetry manual!"

Ok, bad analogy. The war metaphor seemed to be too loaded for you understand what I was talking about. It's not an actual war. It was a comment on how secular movements are total crap at engaging people (ie worse than religions).

If you question this fact I'd say you are utterly and totally delusional.

And I question the sanity of someone claiming that secular movements are crap at engaging people. It is after all, secular movements and NOT religious movements that have managed to impose the greatest amount of social change in the 20th century.

There's a reoccuring activity in the mass of the Syntheist congregation where we sing together. I'd never sang before this. I'm totally shit at singing and I usually hate it. But the way we do it we sing together in harmonies and... well.. I can't tell how shit I am and I enjoy it. Of everything I've tried after joining the Syntheist congregation this is the activity that has had the most powerful impact on me. it's hard to describe. But it very effectively helps against anxiety. I can literally feel my shoulders drop as I'm singing. I'm not a particularly high-strung or anxious person. But it is clearly beneficial to me. Singing like this together with the congregation is more effective than singing alone. It does work when alone also. But not at all as effective when I'm in the group.

Great, I'm really happy that you gain such immense meaning from the same thing that used to bore me to death during music class.

Singing or chanting together is extremely common in all religions.

You know what else is extremely common in all religions? People saying words. Or you know, people in general. Why, I even heard food is common in some religions, can you imagine that?! Something that all humans do! Regularly! Somehow being common in religion! The world is full of surprises, isn't it?

If I wouldn't be part of Syntheism I can't see myself organising group chanting and singing. It's a bit too much work to organise it just to do this. I'd feel like a total dork. I'm not cool enough to be relaxed about it. I like that it's built in as a part of the Syntheist mass experience, as a five minute segment. It's a package with lots of great stuff. The singing being part of it. Once a week for five minutes is a good level for me. Any more and I doubt it'd be beneficial nor to my enjoyment. So I won't be joining a choir any time soon. Basically... without Syntheism I doubt I'd do any group singing in spite of me enjoying it and it being beneficial for me.

So the thing in syntheism that has had the MOST impact on you, isn't worth doing for more than five minutes once a week; nor is it worth the effort of really doing any work for.

Yes, great sell!

This is what I mean with you seeing religion as binary. For you religion only seems to be about belief.

Yeah, it's not like religion is built up around belief or anything.

And once the belief in God is gone it makes all the religious practices worthless.

Yes, because religious practice is by definition dedicated to and in the service of religious *belief*. Just because you are confused enough to think yoga without belief is a religious practice instead of just a practice doesn't mean I have to be.

I don't think it's crazy at all to propose that God was once upon a time invented as an empty symbol simply as way to allow people to practice religion together.

I do; because that's a hopelessly idealistic and naive view of how religions and the ideas behind religion form.

Gods were invented by primitive people who didn't understand why lightning caused their farm to burn down.

Man makes fire. What makes a bigger fire shot down from the sky? A bigger man. A superman? A god! What appeases an angry god? Perhaps he would like some fruit. Nope? Maybe some meat. An animal sacrifice or two. Oh no, the coast flooded killing thousands in the villages over there! Why did god get angry? We sacrificed our cows for him and everything! Well, Og who survived the flood say there were two dudes in one of the villages who were a bit you know. So maybe god was angry at the villages for letting that happen?

Once people believe these sorts of things, other people come along and see profit; thinking, 'why not collect these various folk beliefs and codify them into a system that of course massively benefits the clergy?'

That is how religions and gods are born; not because someone sits down and thinks it all through. Religion, like evolution, is just a never-ending accumulation of crap that half-way works but then suddenly tries to kill us whenever our appendix gets infected.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Religions fill the need to have a structured and ordered worldview; one in which the theist is assured of his place in the order of things. It provides a sense of 'justice', that there is a purpose to their existence. It allows the theist to largely ignore the difficult kind of thoughts and doubts which lead to realizations and insights that can be distressing (such as living in an unfair and uncaring universe). Religion fills the need of providing purpose, guidance, and a minimum of existential stress. However, it can only provide these things so long as the theist actually *believes*; once one takes away the central claims of a religion, the rest falls apart like a house of cards. Religion can't provide one with the certainty of purpose and the absence of existential doubt when one doesn't believe religion to be true in the first place.

Good that we sorted this out. Syntheism provides none of the above. So obviously it's not necessary for all religions. Syntheism does provide a platform where members share and discuss existential issues. But I'm not involved with those groups. I think it's boring, and above all, nothing I need help with from Syntheism. That's not what it's about for me. I still prefer coming to this forum and talk about philosophy here than doing it with other Syntheists. One of the beauty of Syntheism is meeting a variety of people I otherwise wouldn't. The the focus is on soft issues. Emotional stuff, psychology and just getting along. I'd argue that a religion doesn't lend itself well to explore the more hardcore subjects, stuff like meaning of life, existential anxiety or ethics. Those are better handled by other institutions and functions in society. Sure, a religion can be a great place to get help with dealing the the emotional distress of having an existential crisis. But I don't think a religion is well equipped to provide the answers. I'm aware it's pretty standard for religions to try. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Most importantly... it's not mandatory for religions.

The same religion is different things to different people. That's as true of Syntheism as it is for all other religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
And as you can see from the definition, religion is a very wide and varied concept encompassing many forms. It's the community and the rituals that are at the core of any religion. The rest is optional. That includes any requirements of shared beliefs.

False equivalency. You are proposing religion (syntheism) as a mechanism for a specific purpose. I am pointing out that said purpose can be better achieved through other means. A proper analogy would be to say that a car (atheism) and a horse (religion) both serve the purpose of getting you from one place to another; however, it makes no sense to use *both* of them for this purpose at the same time. Once you have the much more effective car, the horse loses its relevance as a means of getting from one place to another.

I think our problem is that we don't agree on what the purpose of religion is. I'd argue that atheism has no purpose. It's just an opinion on a (largely irrelevant) issue. Religion, on the other hand is functional. To use your analogy. Religion can be either a horse or a car. If it's theistic or not is just the colour of it. A horse or a car is just as fast regardless of it being black or red. Whether or not a religion is theistic or not, I'd say is irrelevant as to how well it performs its function. Both a theistic and an atheistic religion can be a car.

If it's possible to enjoy music as well as enjoying watching movies then why not it being possible that an atheist can dabble in religious practice once in a while?

Because religious practice without religious belief is meaningless. And because once again, you're making a false equivalency. Music and movies are both forms of entertainment; there is indeed no reason why one can't enjoy multiple forms of entertainment. However, religious practice is not a form of entertainment; its purpose is entirely dictated by the religion to which the practice belongs: and the primary definition of religion states that it is a collection of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of superhuman agency. Since you have established that syntheism does not accept such beliefs as being true, syntheism is not and can not be a religion: as such, the purpose of the religious practice is lost.

An atheist dabbling in religious practice is equivalent to a car mechanic practicing his craft on a rock.

So how do you explain that I find Syntheism rewarding? Aren't I and Syntheism evidence that you're wrong?

Yoga is a great example of a religious practice that is practiced by all manner of people with all manner of beliefs and what-not.

Yoga without the beliefs behind it is just stretching your legs. We call that physical exercise, not yoga.

I'm guessing you have no experience with practising yoga? I argue that the beliefs of yoga are irrelevant. What makes it yoga are the spiritual exercises. Also, shouldn't be controversial. Mind and body are connected. When we're stressed we physically tense our muscles. It's easier to stretch a relaxed body. Hence the spiritual exercises. You'd have to be high on crack if you participate in a yoga class and you can't physically feel the difference. It's also measurable, with a tape measure. I have done it myself just out of curiosity. It works.

Yoga is also intimately associated with Hinduism. It's part of the religion and a way to practice Hinduism. If you practice yoga you're taking part in a religious practice regardless of what you believe. Whether or not you chose to incorporate it into your own religion is just a matter of choice. If you have trouble accepting this I'm going to accuse you of trolling again. It can be religious practice if you want it to be. Or you can chose not to see it as part of your/a religious practice. It's simply a question of choice.

Yoga often has a bunch of New Age beliefs attached to it. Something many Syntheists have found annoying. As luck would have it we had an excellent yoga teacher who also was Syntheist. So now we've got a Syntheist yoga class at 19.00, every tuesday in Stockholm. Guaranteed New Age free. Nothing that teacher says will be stuff that science can't verify. He's great.

Your use of the term fake religion seems to imply there's such a thing as a genuine religion. Do you have an example of one such religion? What is it that makes it genuine? I'm just trying to understand how you think about religion and how you define it. What makes Syntheism a fake religion? Where does the fakeness come from?

The fact that it doesn't conform to the primary definition of being a religion.

he he... next time, maybe you should try looking it up before commenting.

You're wrong about the placebo effect. Being fooled is not required or mandatory for the placebo effect to take effect. All it requires is that you believe something to be efficacious for the placebo effect to come into action. Knowledge about and belief in the placebo effect is enough to make whatever fetish is employed to work. Yes, even for the hardcore sceptic and militant atheist.

This is simply not the case. This is a misconception based on a couple of studies that make this claim. However, what is often overlooked by people who cite these studies as evidence for the argument that placebo's work regardless of whether or not you believe them, is the fact that the researchers still lied to the people who knew they were on the placebo's, essentially nullifying the conclusion. They told the people on the placebo's that "yes, you're on a sugarpill", but then they also told them things like, "this will actually help because it will train your body to handle pain better". So what they really did was replace one placebo (the sugarpill) with another placebo (the assurances of a medical professional that they'll still get a benefit). As such, it is not the case that the placebo effect will work on you regardless of whether or not you believe in it: you still require belief, whether its a belief in the sugarpill being a real drug, or belief in the doctor's claim that being on a placebo will train your body to better withstand pain. Belief remains the core component.

Mm... and you still don't see the flaw of your logic even if you re-read the above paragraph again? You're disproving your own argument nicely. Thanks for saving me the work.

There's plenty of studies to show that daily prayer/meditation/contemplation/introspection is beneficial for mental well-being.

Actually, there aren't. Most such studies are poorly constructed and don't meet high enough scientific standards to be taken seriously; only a relative handful of studies do manage to pass muster, but are largely inconclusive or do not show a very significant benefit.

Did you even bother googling? Of course you didn't. Silly of me to even ask.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/meditation.htm

Not that it particularly matters for the purposes of the argument, since meditation is not and never has been a specifically religious practice. Referring to it as a religious practice is like saying that clothes are a religious practice because religions often have funny hats.

Ok, here's a challenge. Find me a religion that doesn't have a form of meditation as an important and central part of their religious practice? I can't find one. Wearing specific types of clothes often is a form of religious practice. So your analogy wasn't even an especially good one.

But the point of a religion is to be a collection of tried and tested practices that the practitioner can pick and chose from as if was a menu.

This is absurd. No, the point of religion is not and never has been to provide its adherents with a "menu" to pick and choose from. Unless you mean: "Here's the menu of our religion sir, feel free to pick and choose from the dazzling number of one options, because if you want any other options you can go fuck off to those heretics next door who follow the wrong fucking religion."

MUAHAHAHA "Absurd"?!? That's exactly what is happening in every religion. If not officially, certainly in practice. Yes, even among fundamentalists. In a religion like Christianity the rules and practices are contradictory. I'm aware that they often try to pretend it's not a menu. But it is.

Have you no experience of religion at all? Have you ever had any contact with a religious person or talked to anybody religious? I'm getting the impression that religion is utterly and completely mythic to you?

What I see is one tiny little group of former skeptics who complain about religion, but then model themselves as a religion while patting themselves on the back about how they're not doing the same thing as the other religions.

I guess you're talking about somebody else because I think lots of religions are awesome. Yes, even the theistic ones. If I thought religions were evil I wouldn't go and start one now would I?

But how about letting the atheists who do think it's worth their while do it, and lay off judging?

For the same reason that I judge people who keep on insisting that the word 'literally' means 'not literally but figuratively', people who insist that Russia didn't invade Crimea, people who don't see a problem with not vaccinating their kids, people who insist that we never landed on the moon, or people who at any point in time tell me 'well that's just like, your opinion man.'

I'm listening. What is the harm with atheist religion? All of that sounded pretty bad. So obviously you think atheistic religion is a huge bane on society. So what is this bane?

There's a reoccuring activity in the mass of the Syntheist congregation where we sing together. I'd never sang before this. I'm totally shit at singing and I usually hate it. But the way we do it we sing together in harmonies and... well.. I can't tell how shit I am and I enjoy it. Of everything I've tried after joining the Syntheist congregation this is the activity that has had the most powerful impact on me. it's hard to describe. But it very effectively helps against anxiety. I can literally feel my shoulders drop as I'm singing. I'm not a particularly high-strung or anxious person. But it is clearly beneficial to me. Singing like this together with the congregation is more effective than singing alone. It does work when alone also. But not at all as effective when I'm in the group.

Great, I'm really happy that you gain such immense meaning from the same thing that used to bore me to death during music class.

So because you don't find it meaningful it nobody does? Is that your logic here?

Singing or chanting together is extremely common in all religions.

You know what else is extremely common in all religions? People saying words. Or you know, people in general. Why, I even heard food is common in some religions, can you imagine that?! Something that all humans do! Regularly! Somehow being common in religion! The world is full of surprises, isn't it?

ha ha. You asked. I answered. And now you can't handle that it was a good answer

If I wouldn't be part of Syntheism I can't see myself organising group chanting and singing. It's a bit too much work to organise it just to do this. I'd feel like a total dork. I'm not cool enough to be relaxed about it. I like that it's built in as a part of the Syntheist mass experience, as a five minute segment. It's a package with lots of great stuff. The singing being part of it. Once a week for five minutes is a good level for me. Any more and I doubt it'd be beneficial nor to my enjoyment. So I won't be joining a choir any time soon. Basically... without Syntheism I doubt I'd do any group singing in spite of me enjoying it and it being beneficial for me.

So the thing in syntheism that has had the MOST impact on you, isn't worth doing for more than five minutes once a week; nor is it worth the effort of really doing any work for.

Yes, great sell!

Again... I'm not trying to sell it. I don't have to. I'm only a Syntheist because it makes me happy and works for me. I'm already satisfied. I'm all set. Syntheism doesn't need any more members as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, the group singing is a incredibly simple and banal activity. Yet, extremely rewarding. An activity doesn't have to be difficult to be rewarding. Actually... the most rewarding thing about Syntheism is simply the fact that I take an hour out of my week to do these kinds of things that I normally wouldn't. I'm normally extremely goal oriented. It's very rewarding for me to force myself, for an hour a week, to not be goal oriented. All Syntheist activities do that job. But of the activities the group singing is at the top of the list. The fact that I hang out with people that I otherwise never would is also pretty high up on the list.

Yes, because religious practice is by definition dedicated to and in the service of religious *belief*. Just because you are confused enough to think yoga without belief is a religious practice instead of just a practice doesn't mean I have to be.

That's only your private definition. I don't agree with it and neither does the dictionary. The mere existence of Syntheism proves you wrong. If practising an atheistic religion always would be pointless, why would we keep doing it? Obviously at least two atheists somewhere think it isn't pointless, ergo it isn't pointless. The fact that you think it is pointless is irrelevant. I suggest reading the wikipedia article on religion that I posted above. If you do that before your next post you'll avoid embarrassing yourself further. Just some friendly advice.

 

[dystopian]

Good that we sorted this out. Syntheism provides none of the above. So obviously it's not necessary for all religions.

Syntheism isn't a religion; so it hasn't been demonstrated that it's not necessary for all religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
And as you can see from the definition, religion is a very wide and varied concept encompassing many forms.

Wikipedia does not define words. Dictionaries do.

From the British Dictionary:

1.
belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2.
any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3.
the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers


Even the wikipedia article you linked to agrees that belief is central to religion. In fact, under the paragraph of definitions, the article doesn't list even one definition that is not predicated upon belief. None of the definitions in the article allow for community and ritual without belief; nor do any of the listed definitions allow for belief to be "optional".

I'd argue that atheism has no purpose. It's just an opinion on a (largely irrelevant) issue.

You are correct that atheism has no purpose. It doesn't need to have a purpose. It isn't even an opinion; but rather the absence of belief.

Religion, on the other hand is functional. To use your analogy. Religion can be either a horse or a car.

No, religion can not be either a horse or car; in analogy or otherwise. Quality of function is not arbitrary. Religion can no more be either a horse or a car (in the analogy), as can a car be either a car or a teleporter. Car enthusiast may one day try to argue that the car is just as good as a teleporter... but a teleporter is obviously far superior as a form of personal transport.

If it's theistic or not is just the colour of it. A horse or a car is just as fast regardless of it being black or red.

A car however, is not just as fast as a horse. A car, is a superior form of transportation as compared to a horse. The horse is antiquated in such a role; obsolete. The same is true for religion. It served a purpose at one point, but that purpose is nowadays better and more efficiently filled through secular means. To counter this state of affairs, you have done nothing more than claim that you feel otherwise. At no point have you successfully argued or demonstrated that religion is the most effective at *anything*; you have merely claimed it.

Whether or not a religion is theistic or not, I'd say is irrelevant as to how well it performs its function. Both a theistic and an atheistic religion can be a car.

Even an atheistic religion, however, is predicated on belief. Supernatural belief, in specific. There are a number of religions that can be considered "atheist" in nature, but it is demonstrably false to claim that these religions do not incorporate supernatural or mystical beliefs which are central to their experience.

So how do you explain that I find Syntheism rewarding? Aren't I and Syntheism evidence that you're wrong?

No. You may think so, but you'd do so only because you attribute the value of Syntheism to the wrong things. The rewarding nature of syntheism for you, is nothing more than the result of community; and community reinforcement. As I have repeatedly explained, this is an effect that is entirely separate and independent of any notion of "religion" or "religious practice". The disagreement isn't with whether or not syntheism makes you "feel good"; the disagreement is with what you credit for that feeling.

I'm guessing you have no experience with practising yoga?

Why do you keep insisting that every time my experiences/opinions don't mesh with yours, it must be because I am ignorant/inexperienced? It's the defense mechanism of a theist.

I argue that the beliefs of yoga are irrelevant.

And what you would argue about yoga is not particularly relevant as to the nature of Yoga as a religious practice; you, after all, have decided to strip that part away. What you are familiar with is the watered down "western" version of Yoga, which is really little more than physical exercise.

What makes it yoga are the spiritual exercises.

If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to avoid the term "spiritual". Especially if you're trying to claim that belief is irrelevant to the practice of yoga. The "spiritual" practices of yoga lie exclusively in the realm of belief, after all. Do not confuse "mental" exercises with "spiritual" exercises.

Also, shouldn't be controversial. Mind and body are connected. When we're stressed we physically tense our muscles. It's easier to stretch a relaxed body. Hence the spiritual exercises.

Again, mental, not spiritual. When you're talking about the spiritual aspects of yoga you're not talking about breathing and calming yourself, but rather about nonsense like chakras and being a pathway to enlightenment and the (claimed) supernatural abilities of a yogi.

You'd have to be high on crack if you participate in a yoga class and you can't physically feel the difference.

And the exact same thing applies to a jazzercise class. I am less than impressed.

Yoga is also intimately associated with Hinduism. It's part of the religion and a way to practice Hinduism. If you practice yoga you're taking part in a religious practice regardless of what you believe.

Which of course as I previously tried explaining to you; is wrong. Yoga is associated with a number of religions and sects, yes, this is true. That does not mean that when you practice you are taking part in a religious practice. Fasting is intimately associated with several religions too... but you are NOT engaged in a religious practice when you fast. Incidentally, Yoga is only "intimately" associated with *part* of Hinduism. Specifically Rāja yoga, one of the philosophical schools of Hinduism. It consists of a complex series of *beliefs*; and is particularly noteworthy in the context of our discussion because it incorporates a personal god (Ishvara). It is also a dualistic form of theism. Physical exercise, in the context of Hinduism, is meant to serve in the tradition of belief. It can not just be separated from those beliefs and still be the same thing.

Yoga often has a bunch of New Age beliefs attached to it. Something many Syntheists have found annoying. As luck would have it we had an excellent yoga teacher who also was Syntheist. So now we've got a Syntheist yoga class at 19.00, every tuesday in Stockholm. Guaranteed New Age free. Nothing that teacher says will be stuff that science can't verify. He's great.

Yoga has those beliefs attached to it because those beliefs are directly influenced by the religious beliefs of those who came up with yoga in the first place; and who came up with yoga in order to accomplish what their religious beliefs thought was important. The moment you separate those beliefs from the physical exercise, it stops being a religious practice; and just because a physical exercise whose forms and motions originated in religion. These are two different things.

he he... next time, maybe you should try looking it up before commenting.

As I've already established at the top of this post. I did. Perhaps next time, you should bother to read your own sources to find they don't actually support what you're saying.

Mm... and you still don't see the flaw of your logic even if you re-read the above paragraph again? You're disproving your own argument nicely. Thanks for saving me the work.

There's no flaw. You're simply not understanding the point. The placebo effect works only when you believe in it. You tried to counter this by claiming this is not true. I pointed out that actually, it's still true even if you replace the placebo of the sugarpill with the placebo of 'you'll become a pain-tolerating badass if you take a sugarpill instead of a real drug' (both of these are placebos). The original point being that *belief* is central to the effect. That is why religion is truly as successful as it is; because of the power of belief. When you strip that belief away, whatever you're left with is nowhere near as effective.

Did you even bother googling? Of course you didn't. Silly of me to even ask.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/meditation.htm

Yes. I bothered googling. That's why I said what I said. Do *you* understand that when someone points out that most studies on an area don't meet stringent conditions and produce inconclusive results, you can't prove them wrong by just linking a random website that just lists random studies?

Incidentally, I find it amusing that one of the top results on that site says:

"There is an enormous amount of interest in using meditation as a form of therapy to cope with a variety of modern-day health problems, especially hypertension, stress and chronic pain, but the majority of evidence that seems to support this notion is anecdotal, or it comes from poor quality studies," say Maria Ospina and Kenneth Bond, researchers at the University of Alberta/Capital Health Evidence-based Practice Center in Edmonton, Canada."

Oops?

Ok, here's a challenge. Find me a religion that doesn't have a form of meditation as an important and central part of their religious practice? I can't find one.

Maybe that's because you just "haven't studied religions very well."

Wearing specific types of clothes often is a form of religious practice. So your analogy wasn't even an especially good one.

It is actually an especially good analogy, and even more so because of what you said. After all, think about it. The inevitable result of the logic you're using here means that a pornstar who wears a nun-costume, is in fact engaged in religious practice. She's clearly not. Nobody in their sane mind, would suggest that the fake nun is engaged in religious practice.

MUAHAHAHA "Absurd"?!? That's exactly what is happening in every religion. If not officially, certainly in practice. Yes, even among fundamentalists. In a religion like Christianity the rules and practices are contradictory. I'm aware that they often try to pretend it's not a menu. But it is.

No, that's what people make of it when they can't fully agree with the list of beliefs and precepts of the religion. The religion itself, however, does not promote or even tolerate this sort of behavior. Religion is generally quite clear: this is the way it is. This is what you must belief. You don't get to just make it up as you go along.

Have you no experience of religion at all? Have you ever had any contact with a religious person or talked to anybody religious? I'm getting the impression that religion is utterly and completely mythic to you?

I would rather think it's you who has had no experience of religion at all. Which, in fact, by your statements is correct since you made kind of a big deal earlier in the thread about how you can't empathize with people who live in religious societies. Most people who are religious will not agree with the things you say about religion being a 'menu'. In fact, they would probably take offense to such a cavalier attitude to the system of beliefs and precepts they hold dear.

I guess you're talking about somebody else because I think lots of religions are awesome. Yes, even the theistic ones. If I thought religions were evil I wouldn't go and start one now would I?

Congratulations. Your respect points have gone down by 2.

I'm listening. What is the harm with atheist religion? All of that sounded pretty bad. So obviously you think atheistic religion is a huge bane on society. So what is this bane?

A huge bane? No. It is however, pointless and meaningless. I have made this clear. It is my opinion that people should base their worldviews on facts, and as much of their lives too. As a natural outcropping of such a wish, I'd also like them to cut away things that aren't necessary. I think it's probably a good idea for people to not go to the corner shop using their humvee. That strikes me as a waste. Similarly, I think it's a good idea for people to not be part of pretend religions where they pretend to believe things even though they clearly don't. It isn't necessary, and those people could get the same thing they get out of it from less convoluted things.

Finally, you're not a religion; atheistic or otherwise.

ha ha. You asked. I answered. And now you can't handle that it was a good answer

Yes, because it is a human custom to respond to good answers and thoughts with blatant sarcasm.

Again... I'm not trying to sell it. I don't have to.

"I'm not trying to sell you my cookies sir, I just want you to read this 500 point document as to why my cookies are awesome."

Yes, the group singing is a incredibly simple and banal activity. Yet, extremely rewarding.

Just not rewarding enough that you want to do it for more than five minutes a week.

Yes. That sounds real... rewarding.

That's only your private definition. I don't agree with it and neither does the dictionary.

As I have established earlier in this post; it does in fact agree with me.

The mere existence of Syntheism proves you wrong.

No, it doesn't. If it did, then the mere existence of paint would prove me wrong when I say that fish don't like being in fish tanks.

If practising an atheistic religion always would be pointless, why would we keep doing it?

Why does a crazy person keep banging their heads against the wall? You know what, that's an excellent question. BRB, need to bash my head against the wall a couple of hundred times. I'll get back to you when I find out if its pointless.

...

Okay I'm back. Here's my findings:

It's pointless.

Obviously at least two atheists somewhere think it isn't pointless, ergo it isn't pointless.

That's not how that works. Just because a fish thinks he's going somewhere, doesn't mean it isn't pointless for him to swim around in circles because he's trapped in a tiny bowl.

The fact that you think it is pointless is irrelevant. I suggest reading the wikipedia article on religion that I posted above. If you do that before your next post you'll avoid embarrassing yourself further. Just some friendly advice.

Thanks, but I'd read that article well before I'd ever heard of you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

From the British Dictionary:

1.
belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2.
any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3.
the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers

Good work finding a dictionary that agrees with you. But it isn't hard to find more reputable dictionaries that doesn't.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Even the wikipedia article you linked to agrees that belief is central to religion. In fact, under the paragraph of definitions, the article doesn't list even one definition that is not predicated upon belief. None of the definitions in the article allow for community and ritual without belief; nor do any of the listed definitions allow for belief to be "optional".

Now I know you're trolling.

If it's theistic or not is just the colour of it. A horse or a car is just as fast regardless of it being black or red.

A car however, is not just as fast as a horse. A car, is a superior form of transportation as compared to a horse. The horse is antiquated in such a role; obsolete. The same is true for religion. It served a purpose at one point, but that purpose is nowadays better and more efficiently filled through secular means. To counter this state of affairs, you have done nothing more than claim that you feel otherwise. At no point have you successfully argued or demonstrated that religion is the most effective at *anything*; you have merely claimed it.

I have made no such claim. I've merely claimed that it is efficient. Not that it is the most efficient. Any organisation built around managing emotions is fickle at best, due to the subjective nature of emotions. Comparing any relative merits is difficult for the same reason psychological research is often criticised.

Whether or not a religion is theistic or not, I'd say is irrelevant as to how well it performs its function. Both a theistic and an atheistic religion can be a car.

Even an atheistic religion, however, is predicated on belief. Supernatural belief, in specific.

That's a valid point. Being an atheist does have implications on faith.

There are a number of religions that can be considered "atheist" in nature, but it is demonstrably false to claim that these religions do not incorporate supernatural or mystical beliefs which are central to their experience.

Modern atheism is a French Enlightenment idea. All major religions are older than this. So it would be patently absurd to claim that they're atheistic by design. None of them are. This is true even if they're today compatible with atheism. Like Buddhism or Zoroastrianism, for example. They all have supernatural baggage. That's one of the main reasons why we started from scratch with Syntheism. We wanted an atheistic religion that never has had any hint of supernatural belief in it. It's in order to insulate ourselves completely and utterly from New Age types. Three years in I'm happy to report that it has been extremely successful.

Mystical isn't the same thing as supernatural. Mysticism tends to focus inward and on the experiences, rather than providing any answers. On anything concrete they're evasive at best IMHO. Still not atheism though. But not clearly theist either.

So how do you explain that I find Syntheism rewarding? Aren't I and Syntheism evidence that you're wrong?

No. You may think so, but you'd do so only because you attribute the value of Syntheism to the wrong things. The rewarding nature of syntheism for you, is nothing more than the result of community; and community reinforcement. As I have repeatedly explained, this is an effect that is entirely separate and independent of any notion of "religion" or "religious practice". The disagreement isn't with whether or not syntheism makes you "feel good"; the disagreement is with what you credit for that feeling.

How the fuck do you know? How are you not just talking out of your ass now?

I'm guessing you have no experience with practising yoga?

Why do you keep insisting that every time my experiences/opinions don't mesh with yours, it must be because I am ignorant/inexperienced? It's the defense mechanism of a theist.

I've done lots of yoga. I've done yoga every day for three years now. With a variety of teachers. I think I've done enough yoga now to spot a bullshitter. Which is you, Sir. Based on what you've said so far you seem totally and utterly clueless about yoga.

And what you would argue about yoga is not particularly relevant as to the nature of Yoga as a religious practice; you, after all, have decided to strip that part away. What you are familiar with is the watered down "western" version of Yoga, which is really little more than physical exercise.

LoL... you're the last person I thought would come with this one. But since you're such a advanced yogi you should know how wrong you were initially. So... it's all settled then. Oooohhhmmmm

If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to avoid the term "spiritual". Especially if you're trying to claim that belief is irrelevant to the practice of yoga. The "spiritual" practices of yoga lie exclusively in the realm of belief, after all. Do not confuse "mental" exercises with "spiritual" exercises.

I think spiritual is a perfectly valid expression and word. So is the soul. They're meaningful metaphors that I think successfully catch aspects of our inners life. I do not give a shit that supernaturalists have problems managing poetic prose. This is one of the reasons I'm a Syntheist and now do yoga with other Syntheists. It's so I should be able to use the term spiritual in my yoga practice without anybody getting any ideas about me referring to anything supernatural.

Also, shouldn't be controversial. Mind and body are connected. When we're stressed we physically tense our muscles. It's easier to stretch a relaxed body. Hence the spiritual exercises.

Again, mental, not spiritual. When you're talking about the spiritual aspects of yoga you're not talking about breathing and calming yourself, but rather about nonsense like chakras and being a pathway to enlightenment and the (claimed) supernatural abilities of a yogi.

To me "mental" is a clinical term not suited when discussing subjective states as we are here. I think spiritual is a better term. We're both atheists, so there's no chance any of us will be confused as to what is going on.

I think chakraas is bullshit. Also, don't believe in Buddhist style enlightenment. So obviously one doesn't automatically imply the other.

You'd have to be high on crack if you participate in a yoga class and you can't physically feel the difference.

And the exact same thing applies to a jazzercise class. I am less than impressed.

Um... yes. Because dancing uses music to alter states of mood in order to facilitate movement in various ways. I never said yoga or Syntheism is the best, or only method. This discussion started with me claiming that art can have the exact same function as religion.

Yoga is also intimately associated with Hinduism. It's part of the religion and a way to practice Hinduism. If you practice yoga you're taking part in a religious practice regardless of what you believe.

Which of course as I previously tried explaining to you; is wrong. Yoga is associated with a number of religions and sects, yes, this is true. That does not mean that when you practice you are taking part in a religious practice. Fasting is intimately associated with several religions too... but you are NOT engaged in a religious practice when you fast. Incidentally, Yoga is only "intimately" associated with *part* of Hinduism. Specifically Rāja yoga, one of the philosophical schools of Hinduism. It consists of a complex series of *beliefs*; and is particularly noteworthy in the context of our discussion because it incorporates a personal god (Ishvara). It is also a dualistic form of theism. Physical exercise, in the context of Hinduism, is meant to serve in the tradition of belief. It can not just be separated from those beliefs and still be the same thing.

Thanks for yet again arguing my case for me disproving your own argument.

Yoga often has a bunch of New Age beliefs attached to it. Something many Syntheists have found annoying. As luck would have it we had an excellent yoga teacher who also was Syntheist. So now we've got a Syntheist yoga class at 19.00, every tuesday in Stockholm. Guaranteed New Age free. Nothing that teacher says will be stuff that science can't verify. He's great.

Yoga has those beliefs attached to it because those beliefs are directly influenced by the religious beliefs of those who came up with yoga in the first place; and who came up with yoga in order to accomplish what their religious beliefs thought was important. The moment you separate those beliefs from the physical exercise, it stops being a religious practice; and just because a physical exercise whose forms and motions originated in religion. These are two different things.

Oh, for fucks sake. This shit is NOT complicated. How the fuck can't you connect the dots here. ha ha ha ha

he he... next time, maybe you should try looking it up before commenting.

As I've already established at the top of this post. I did. Perhaps next time, you should bother to read your own sources to find they don't actually support what you're saying.

I give up. Your problem seems to be basic reading comprehension.

Ok, here's a challenge. Find me a religion that doesn't have a form of meditation as an important and central part of their religious practice? I can't find one.

Maybe that's because you just "haven't studied religions very well."

ha ha ha. That's always a way to try to deflect attention away from you being wrong yet again.

Wearing specific types of clothes often is a form of religious practice. So your analogy wasn't even an especially good one.

It is actually an especially good analogy, and even more so because of what you said. After all, think about it. The inevitable result of the logic you're using here means that a pornstar who wears a nun-costume, is in fact engaged in religious practice. She's clearly not. Nobody in their sane mind, would suggest that the fake nun is engaged in religious practice.

Unless they are. If somebody says that what they're doing is a religious practice, who are you to say that they aren't? This is the problem with our entire discussion. What is or isn't religion is up to the devotee. Nobody else is in a position to say that they aren't. Including you.

In Sweden we have a church of file-sharing. They're atheists. I can't think of anybody who have claimed that they're not a real religion. Even though it's obviously a joke religion. It's like the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. It still counts as a religion. Sweden has a government authority who's only job it is to verify that religions are genuine, and they've given the official stamp of approval to Kopimism.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16424659

I can't see how you have a foot to stand on here

MUAHAHAHA "Absurd"?!? That's exactly what is happening in every religion. If not officially, certainly in practice. Yes, even among fundamentalists. In a religion like Christianity the rules and practices are contradictory. I'm aware that they often try to pretend it's not a menu. But it is.

No, that's what people make of it when they can't fully agree with the list of beliefs and precepts of the religion. The religion itself, however, does not promote or even tolerate this sort of behavior. Religion is generally quite clear: this is the way it is. This is what you must belief. You don't get to just make it up as you go along.

Good that you decided that. I'll just go and tell my beer drinking Muslim friend that he's misunderstood this religion thing completely. He has been under the impression that religion was a personal choice. Boy, was he wrong. Thanks for setting us straight.

Have you no experience of religion at all? Have you ever had any contact with a religious person or talked to anybody religious? I'm getting the impression that religion is utterly and completely mythic to you?

I would rather think it's you who has had no experience of religion at all. Which, in fact, by your statements is correct since you made kind of a big deal earlier in the thread about how you can't empathize with people who live in religious societies. Most people who are religious will not agree with the things you say about religion being a 'menu'. In fact, they would probably take offense to such a cavalier attitude to the system of beliefs and precepts they hold dear.

I take issues of faith seriously. To me, anybody religious who believes in God has a very cavalier attitude to basic logic, and in extension have little respect for their own faith. So I could not give less of a shit what other people think of my religion or the right to practice it or call it a religion. I often get the impression that most religious have an on-going competition how much other religious practitioners are doing it wrong. That's the problem with a religion that has a finite list of the correct way to do religion. It means everybody who does it any other way, aren't really religious. Anybody trying to judge the way I do religion can go fuck off and mind their own business.

I'm listening. What is the harm with atheist religion? All of that sounded pretty bad. So obviously you think atheistic religion is a huge bane on society. So what is this bane?

A huge bane? No. It is however, pointless and meaningless. I have made this clear.

Yet you seem unphased about the existence of Syntheism proving you wrong.

It is my opinion that people should base their worldviews on facts, and as much of their lives too. As a natural outcropping of such a wish, I'd also like them to cut away things that aren't necessary. I think it's probably a good idea for people to not go to the corner shop using their humvee. That strikes me as a waste. Similarly, I think it's a good idea for people to not be part of pretend religions where they pretend to believe things even though they clearly don't. It isn't necessary, and those people could get the same thing they get out of it from less convoluted things.

How about you worrying about cutting away things that aren't necessary to your own life, and stop shoving your nose in other people's business? Obviously you and me are different and have different values.

Finally, you're not a religion; atheistic or otherwise.

You're still suffering from the delusion that you get to decide what other people think is a religion.

Yes, the group singing is a incredibly simple and banal activity. Yet, extremely rewarding.

Just not rewarding enough that you want to do it for more than five minutes a week.

Yes. That sounds real... rewarding.

This is a bizarre statement.

That's only your private definition. I don't agree with it and neither does the dictionary.

As I have established earlier in this post; it does in fact agree with me.

I suggest joining a religion that has as part of their practice exercises in reading comprehension.

If practising an atheistic religion always would be pointless, why would we keep doing it?

Why does a crazy person keep banging their heads against the wall? You know what, that's an excellent question. BRB, need to bash my head against the wall a couple of hundred times. I'll get back to you when I find out if its pointless.

I understand what you mean. I somehow keep replying to your posts. I should stop.

Obviously at least two atheists somewhere think it isn't pointless, ergo it isn't pointless.

That's not how that works. Just because a fish thinks he's going somewhere, doesn't mean it isn't pointless for him to swim around in circles because he's trapped in a tiny bowl.

Actually... that's exactly how it works. If the point is emotional satisfaction nobody else can pass judgement on how pointless it is.

The fact that you think it is pointless is irrelevant. I suggest reading the wikipedia article on religion that I posted above. If you do that before your next post you'll avoid embarrassing yourself further. Just some friendly advice.

Thanks, but I'd read that article well before I'd ever heard of you.

But obviously not very carefully.

 

[PyramidHead]

At this point, is the time spent carefully parsing one another's individual sentences into quotes worth the effort?

Let me try and sum your positions up:

Dr. Z: religion is emotionally satisfying even though it might be based on something empirically false
Dystopian: religion is stupid even if it is emotionally satisfying, and there are better non-religious ways to obtain emotional satisfaction
Dr. Z: those are also religion
Dystopian: no those are not religion
Dr. Z: yes those are religion

And so on. Did I leave anything out?

Arguing about definitions is the death rattle of any dispute, because there will never come a time where either person will go "oh my bad, you're right, that's what [x] really means" because language is not set in stone.

For Dystopian, to use religious myths as a means of obtaining emotional satisfaction is not emotionally satisfying to him. (It isn't to me either.) But it is to DrZoidberg, so have at it man. I still wish you would get on with all that without associating with Syntheism, especially when there are people who write books full of nonsense called Syntheism. It will make people attribute those opinions to you, since that's how religions usually work. And linking to it in your OP didn't do you any favors either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still wish you would get on with all that without associating with Syntheism, especially when there are people who write books full of nonsense called Syntheism. It will make people attribute those opinions to you, since that's how religions usually work. And linking to it in your OP didn't do you any favors either.

Well... that says more about you than the religion. What opinions do you attribute on... let's say Muslim? Or Christian? The fact that they're religious tells you next to nothing about their attitudes about anything really. Not really. Religious communities are home to all sorts of people, with varying opinions and beliefs. Even people who believe in God, their definitions of God vary so wildly that it to says virtually nothing about what they actually believe other than in the vaguest of senses. The only thing that being religious tells you about a person is that they get some emotional satisfaction from being part of a religious community. That's all.

On the book. I do agree with most things Alexander Bard says. So you can attribute most of that book to me as well. My reservations about that book are mostly stylistically, as well as him making claims how stuff is by necessity, when it's not. Too strong inferences from weak predicates. It's logic. If it's garbage in, it's garbage out. If the predicates are too speculative, then so is the result. Which is the situation for this book. The quagmire all post modernists end up in. I think the book is interesting. But not more.

I would have expressed myself more carefully and covered all bases. But then again, that might just be a way his publisher told him he must express himself to be published. I really don't know. So I won't judge him too harshly. In person he's not even remotely this cocksure. He's a very humble guy.

I also don't understand why he included our invented Syntheistic gods in the book. How Gods are designed are by their very nature arbitrary and subject to change. So it makes no sense describing them in a book about Syntheism. We might make new gods tomorrow. But that's a pretty mild critique of the book.

 

[PyramidHead]

I still wish you would get on with all that without associating with Syntheism, especially when there are people who write books full of nonsense called Syntheism. It will make people attribute those opinions to you, since that's how religions usually work. And linking to it in your OP didn't do you any favors either.

Well... that says more about you than the religion. What opinions do you attribute on... let's say Muslim? Or Christian? The fact that they're religious tells you next to nothing about their attitudes about anything really. Not really. Religious communities are home to all sorts of people, with varying opinions and beliefs. Even people who believe in God, their definitions of God vary so wildly that it to says virtually nothing about what they actually believe other than in the vaguest of senses. The only thing that being religious tells you about a person is that they get some emotional satisfaction from being part of a religious community. That's all.

Only if you are dealing in absolute certainty. I am talking about probabilities. If someone tells me they are a practicing Christian, you are correct that I cannot be completely sure of their beliefs. However, it is more likely than not that they believe certain things about Jesus, certain things about what happens when you die, certain things about how one should behave, etc. These opinions are not randomly distributed among religions! Their probability significantly clusters around those who self-identify as Christians (surely you do not deny even this?). In the same way, despite not being a surefire sign, it is impossibly to reasonably dispute the fact that an Arab man who says he is a devout Muslim is more likely than the average person to believe certain things about Allah, certain things about what to eat, and certain things about the dynamic between men and women. To say the probability of each of these opinions happening in the mind of a self-identified devout Muslim is the same as the chance of them being espoused by an atheist or an orthodox Jew is to favor egalitarianism over accuracy.

Anyway, my point was that it is not unreasonable to attribute--in the probabilistic (not absolute) manner I just described--what is written in book called Syntheism to people who say they are Syntheists. The probability goes up when the book is featured in a post written by a Syntheist that says "here, take a look at Syntheism". That's all I'm saying.

On the book. I do agree with most things Alexander Bard says. So you can attribute most of that book to me as well. My reservations about that book are mostly stylistically, as well as him making claims how stuff is by necessity, when it's not. Too strong inferences from weak predicates. It's logic. If it's garbage in, it's garbage out. If the predicates are too speculative, then so is the result. Which is the situation for this book. The quagmire all post modernists end up in. I think the book is interesting. But not more.

I would have expressed myself more carefully and covered all bases. But then again, that might just be a way his publisher told him he must express himself to be published. I really don't know. So I won't judge him too harshly. In person he's not even remotely this cocksure. He's a very humble guy.

I also don't understand why he included our invented Syntheistic gods in the book. How Gods are designed are by their very nature arbitrary and subject to change. So it makes no sense describing them in a book about Syntheism. We might make new gods tomorrow. But that's a pretty mild critique of the book.

I remain in positive disagreement with you about what religion is, but as you have clarified, that is not really a tenet of Syntheism per se but your personal view. So it's a different discussion, really. However, I also disagree with most of what I could wrangle from that book.

 

[dystopian]

At this point, is the time spent carefully parsing one another's individual sentences into quotes worth the effort?

Let me try and sum your positions up:

Dr. Z: religion is emotionally satisfying even though it might be based on something empirically false
Dystopian: religion is stupid even if it is emotionally satisfying, and there are better non-religious ways to obtain emotional satisfaction
Dr. Z: those are also religion
Dystopian: no those are not religion
Dr. Z: yes those are religion

And so on. Did I leave anything out?

That's essentially it; although I also assert that there is something inherently pointless and counterproductive about maintaining religious terminology and fanfare for something that doesn't include genuine religious belief. Not to mention there's something innately aggravating about atheists building a religion (regardless of whether or not we agree it's a real religion) for the purposes that have been put forth in the case of syntheism. It strikes me as the equivalent of a spousal abuse victim finally managing to separate herself from her abuser, only to then create an animatronic copy of him which yells at her because she feels there's something missing in life. It just doesn't seem healthy or sane.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well... that says more about you than the religion. What opinions do you attribute on... let's say Muslim? Or Christian? The fact that they're religious tells you next to nothing about their attitudes about anything really. Not really. Religious communities are home to all sorts of people, with varying opinions and beliefs. Even people who believe in God, their definitions of God vary so wildly that it to says virtually nothing about what they actually believe other than in the vaguest of senses. The only thing that being religious tells you about a person is that they get some emotional satisfaction from being part of a religious community. That's all.

Only if you are dealing in absolute certainty. I am talking about probabilities. If someone tells me they are a practicing Christian, you are correct that I cannot be completely sure of their beliefs. However, it is more likely than not that they believe certain things about Jesus, certain things about what happens when you die, certain things about how one should behave, etc. These opinions are not randomly distributed among religions! Their probability significantly clusters around those who self-identify as Christians (surely you do not deny even this?).

How do you know? This is speculative to the extreme. I also suspect that it's false. I'm pretty sure beliefs and values are more related to income, technology and crime rate than what religion they belong to. This is the Euthyphro dilemma. Morals and values do not come from religion. The fact that Christians like to believe that morals and values come from religion is beside the point. We know they're wrong. Socrates has already demonstrated it.This is a correlation causation thing. We've all seen the famous statistic where you're more likely to get murdered in a deeply religious community than a more atheistic one. The link, as we all know, is poverty. Poverty makes people more religious as well as more criminally inclined.

If Christians really believe in heaven, why the fuck do they cry at funerals? I don't think they buy into their own bullshit themselves. I suspect that they all know, deep down, it's baloney. But I'll admit, that last bit is highly speculative on my part.

In the same way, despite not being a surefire sign, it is impossibly to reasonably dispute the fact that an Arab man who says he is a devout Muslim is more likely than the average person to believe certain things about Allah, certain things about what to eat, and certain things about the dynamic between men and women. To say the probability of each of these opinions happening in the mind of a self-identified devout Muslim is the same as the chance of them being espoused by an atheist or an orthodox Jew is to favor egalitarianism over accuracy.

There's a correlation between how large percentage of a population works within agriculture and women's rights. I didn't check this statistic, so I could be off by a bit, but around the time when a majority of the population don't work in agriculture women get the vote (in democratic countries). This is regardless of culture. It's not just voting. But it's all women's issues. Stuff like access to contraceptives. Domestic violence being outlawed. It's a whole package of rights awarded to women in post-agrarian cultures. Obviously, there's a connection with an industrial economy and an inability to effectively control women and tie them down. In an industrial economy women who aren't treated with respect will leave. Women in agrarian economies don't have that luxury. They seldom have anywhere to turn.

The middle east was primarily agrarian right up until the 70'ies. Before they found oil, the middle-east wasn't too prosperous. I'd argue that Islam is the way it is, due to who it is who are Muslims, and their economic situation. What makes matters worse is that most of their economies are based around oil. When a country has very valuable resources, what tends to happen is that the country becomes authoritarian, extraordinarily corrupt and conservative. This acts to retard social change. This also puts the break on things like women's rights. Change will still happen. But more slowly.

So from a sociological point of view the Middle-Easterners are behaving exactly the way they're expected to given their economic realities. This would suggest religion being irrelevant for informing Middle-Eastern values.

A religion can have moral codes, and rules of conduct. But the truth is that nobody religious gives a shit about their own religion's rules. They only care about the rules that benefit themselves somehow. That was Nietzsche's insight btw. The believers are only pretending to follow the rules. Religion isn't about the rules. That's not what it's for IMHO.

Anyway, my point was that it is not unreasonable to attribute--in the probabilistic (not absolute) manner I just described--what is written in book called Syntheism to people who say they are Syntheists. The probability goes up when the book is featured in a post written by a Syntheist that says "here, take a look at Syntheism". That's all I'm saying.

But the book pushes no values. An extremely condensed summation of Bard's point is that individualistic nihilism is pointless. It's empty. What makes humans happy is to connect with others. Sharing is caring. It could be any community. We all like the feeling of feeling that we're part of something greater than us. Sure, it's always an illusion. But we like the illusion. Atheism may be correct. But just being an atheist doesn't by itself fill the societal gap that religions were designed to fill, and traditionally did fill.

Just like we're doing now, when talking on this forum. We both get some sort of spiritual nourishment from talking and sharing our thoughts and ideas. We all get a kick out of being read and understood by others. Even by people who disagree with us. It's a pretty banal insight.

And of course, religions are unnecessary. The same function can be filled in any number of ways. But we who have joined the Syntheists think that Syntheism is a good way to do it. Not the best. But good enough.

On the book. I do agree with most things Alexander Bard says. So you can attribute most of that book to me as well. My reservations about that book are mostly stylistically, as well as him making claims how stuff is by necessity, when it's not. Too strong inferences from weak predicates. It's logic. If it's garbage in, it's garbage out. If the predicates are too speculative, then so is the result. Which is the situation for this book. The quagmire all post modernists end up in. I think the book is interesting. But not more.

I would have expressed myself more carefully and covered all bases. But then again, that might just be a way his publisher told him he must express himself to be published. I really don't know. So I won't judge him too harshly. In person he's not even remotely this cocksure. He's a very humble guy.

I also don't understand why he included our invented Syntheistic gods in the book. How Gods are designed are by their very nature arbitrary and subject to change. So it makes no sense describing them in a book about Syntheism. We might make new gods tomorrow. But that's a pretty mild critique of the book.

I remain in positive disagreement with you about what religion is, but as you have clarified, that is not really a tenet of Syntheism per se but your personal view. So it's a different discussion, really. However, I also disagree with most of what I could wrangle from that book.

I respect that. We're all different and have different needs

 

[PyramidHead]

Only if you are dealing in absolute certainty. I am talking about probabilities. If someone tells me they are a practicing Christian, you are correct that I cannot be completely sure of their beliefs. However, it is more likely than not that they believe certain things about Jesus, certain things about what happens when you die, certain things about how one should behave, etc. These opinions are not randomly distributed among religions! Their probability significantly clusters around those who self-identify as Christians (surely you do not deny even this?).

How do you know? This is speculative to the extreme. I also suspect that it's false. I'm pretty sure beliefs and values are more related to income, technology and crime rate than what religion they belong to. This is the Euthyphro dilemma. Morals and values do not come from religion. The fact that Christians like to believe that morals and values come from religion is beside the point. We know they're wrong. Socrates has already demonstrated it.This is a correlation causation thing. We've all seen the famous statistic where you're more likely to get murdered in a deeply religious community than a more atheistic one. The link, as we all know, is poverty. Poverty makes people more religious as well as more criminally inclined.

This is borderline lunacy. Poverty does not make people believe that a virgin gave birth to Jesus our lord and savior. We have a word for people who profess to believe that actually happened. It, and no other word, neatly encapsulates them based on this characteristic, and differentiates them from people who deny Jesus' virgin birth took place. And for Pete's sake, the word isn't "poor" and you know it.

While we're being speculative, I think it is more than mere coincidence that you have adopted your view of religion fairly simultaneously with becoming a member of a religion. In other words, because you are ideologically committed to Syntheism being a positive force in (at least) your life, it leaves you feeling as if you must defend all religion on that basis. I have no skin in this game, I see no a priori reason that religions must be one way or another. You seem to have set up this massive interconnected Quinean web of re-definitions and re-interpretations, at the center of which is the proposition that religion must never be at fault for anything whatsoever, must never be specifically about anything that could be negatively construed, must be the same for everybody throughout history as it is for you this year. Tangled and sticky is the silk of that web from my perspective, not knowing you in person. I may be wrong, but I don't normally impute deep pathologies to relative strangers unless they say some seriously wayward stuff while otherwise being clever and observant.

To the extent that you can be swayed by it, my advice is that you don't have to adopt a worldview that exempts religion from all culpability. You can continue to find solace in ritual and mythology while at the same time acknowledging that religions have something to do with what people believe. You need not burden your considerable intellect trying to find some research that explains why entire groups of humans face a certain direction relative to the planet's equator and carry out remarkably consistent bodily movements and utterances, while other people don't... I see you frantically scouring the internet for a variable, a societal pressure, any one will do, just please don't let it be because they are probably Muslim, which is the obvious truth. Why is such a parsimonious explanation so poisonous to you, I wonder? You didn't need to go that far; you might have assented that the particular traditions and strictures of Islam bear more than a passing resemblance to what many Muslims do, but beyond that it's all outside forces. But you specifically insisted that ALL of the hallmarks of religious behavior, including something as idiosyncratic as not shaving one's facial hair, can be traced back to the invention of the printing press or some such gymnastics. Yet at the same time, a group of friends cheering at a football game are participating in a religious ceremony. No, to make that leap with a straight face indicates to me that something pernicious has gotten hold of you.

But the book pushes no values. An extremely condensed summation of Bard's point is that individualistic nihilism is pointless. It's empty. What makes humans happy is to connect with others. Sharing is caring. It could be any community. We all like the feeling of feeling that we're part of something greater than us. Sure, it's always an illusion. But we like the illusion. Atheism may be correct. But just being an atheist doesn't by itself fill the societal gap that religions were designed to fill, and traditionally did fill.

I strongly doubt you will find many nihilists who think it is anything other than pointless and empty. That is the very definition of nihilism, so nothing profound there.

When you go from "humans" and start saying "we" I have to to wonder, is the pronoun referring to the speaker and other Syntheists, or humanity as a whole? I don't particularly like the feeling of being being part of something greater than us. Connecting with other humans does not usually make me happy. Under most circumstances, I don't like illusions. I'm sure you are fine with all this and aren't going to tell me I'm wrong, but the author of Syntheism appears to disagree. So that's where I part ways with Syntheism I guess.