5 ms·

> I recommend religion and religious teachings which address this and many other daily worldly issues perfectly. This advice simply doesn't work if the recipie

> I recommend religion and religious teachings which address this and many other daily worldly issues perfectly. This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist. To me, Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. If you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes. However, IF you are a religious person, and find meaning in your religious books, then take the win, and enjoy that path. It's just that it's not a path everyone can take.

dboreham 4y ago
> This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist. Then try Buddhism? More of a philosophy than a religion, and seems to have hit on the idea thousands of years ago that most problems in humanity are to do with mental illness of one sort or another.
- annyeonghada 4y ago
  Buddhism is definitely a religion with a specific epistemology, claims on the supernatural (karma, cycle of samsara), manifestations of the divine (Bodhisattva), rituals, chants and prayers. Some Buddhist sects can be pretty radical, even. Buddhism as conceptualized in the western world is a marketing strategy that appeals to people thanks to the fact the Buddhism is exotic, the same reason Christian symbolism is à la mode in Asia (just see how many anime have Christian themes). If you could repackage Christianity to convince these people that it is new, exotic and exciting they would convert immediately. By the way, there are philosophical traditions, both in Buddhism and Christianity, that reject any supernatural claim and see religion as a useful but not true moral framework, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism P.S.: I'm an atheist. I'm not defending a religion or another.
lethologica 4y ago
I’ve known plenty of people who get a ton of meaning out of fictional works too. Just because you view it as fictional doesn’t mean it can’t have meaning.
Consultant32452 4y ago
The difference between Harry Potter and most religious texts is that the religious texts are often the result of thousands of years of evolutionary processes which refine them, and the people who have followed them have survived/thrived. It doesn't matter if the Bible/Koran/whatever is a fact or not. Religious beliefs/texts are an extension of human evolution and should be seen that way. Questioning their wisdom in helping humans thrive is like questioning the value of arms.
- rajin444 4y ago
  This answer is on the right track. There will always be outliers, but most humans have a fundamental need for “religion”. The west is in the process of creating a new one (modern liberal values), but as with most rewrites, you probably should have understood the existing solution before throwing it out.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    A friend of mine stated this as such: "every human able to reason has a religion-shaped hole in them; and that spot will be filled with something whether or not the human expects it to or wants it to." I submit that plenty of religious thought patterns (things and systems you are not allowed to question the wisdom of, obsequious deference to authority, etc.) exist outside the halls of churches. PG's essay on heresy comes to mind.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Questioning specific things seems easy enough. Like proscriptions on pork or seafood; we have a pretty good understanding of the consequences of eating pork and don't necessarily have to rely on something that was a useful rule of thumb absent that knowledge.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    Your response looks like the output of a poorly written shell script that prints meaningless fact checks when someone mentions religion. Did you also know the universe wasn't created in 6 days?
bin_bash 4y ago
I think it can be interesting to approach religious teachings from a perennialist mindset: what’s common between all religions. There is a lot to learn about life and human nature in religion. You don’t have to believe in an afterlife or practice dogma to get something out of it.
klik99 4y ago
I disagree - I do not believe in any organized religion but I do like the Bible - almost all of Western society is built on it so there is a power in the words as you're tapping into something fundamental that's been bounced around culture for centuries. I dip into it occasionally and find some passage that really speaks to me. Admittedly I do ignore parts of it - there's a lot of "wives should be obedient" stuff in there that has not aged well for instance - and I read it as God representing something like the Chinese Dao - IE the impersonal and immaterial laws of nature, the way that things unfold, and faith in God being an active version of the Stoic idea that you can't change the things you don't have control over, so just let it be.
Clubber 4y ago
To me, Theology is really philosophy + God. That's kinda the beauty of it, you can interpret it however you like or however it fits you at the time. If you don't want the + God right now, just consider the philosophy. >Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view Plato's The Cave allegory is relevant, even though no one would ever live in a cave like that and it's obviously fiction. Some people treat the Bible as a historical text, but most don't. Some people believe the earth is flat too, there's always that 10-20%. Having said that, I tried reading the Bible but I couldn't get through all the begats. I do like hearing honest people discuss it though. Like anything, it can certainly be weaponized.
- sidibe 4y ago
  I think philosophy without faith is nice but doesn't have the same benefits at all. I think what makes religious people happier is the strong sense of community and offloading some of their existential angst to a third party.
zivkovicp 4y ago
I am also a non-believer, but I think there is room for religion even for those who have a difficult time with the "fairy tale" aspect of it. Personally, I do not, but I'm thinking about giving it a shot. The thing is that the stories in religious books help paint a picture of life and offer anecdotes on how one can navigate it. There is no need to look for enlightenment, just practical advice on how to deal with tough life situations and help you find motivation and strength to power through. Thousands of years of observing and documenting people's lives through stories and metaphors has value, even for us non-believers. I think you'd even be surprised how many people who regularly attend church services don't actually believe in the mystic aspect of it all; it's the community and guidance that have the most value to them.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  You can pick and choose philosophy and morals from a religion (or multiple religions) without buying the whole farm. To me, this seems like the right way to go. Cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the cruel parts and weird, supernatural stuff. Church selection seems to play a big role. I don't know too much about it but from other commenters, there are apparently churches that emphasize the mysticism and paranormal side of Christianity, some that focus on the texts, some that mostly deal with hero-worship and the hero's origin story, some that are basically political Trump rallies, and some more laid back ones that are basically social/music clubs.
aahortwwy 4y ago
You really don't see the difference between popular fiction and cultural texts that have survived for thousands of years? How do you feel about The Iliad, Plato's dialogues, the Mahabharata, Tao Te Ching, or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Do they also offer "no more meaning in your world" than modern fantasy novels? I didn't think being an atheist meant closing ones mind to human culture. Guess I've been doing it wrong.
- elteto 4y ago
  None of these are religious texts (as in, the Bible, the Koran, etc) . What are you talking about?
  - jhugo 4y ago
    Do you have any more evidence for some of the claims made in those texts than you do for the claims made in religious texts? Read them all as fiction, but they're still culturally significant and a lot can be learned by reading them, even if all you are learning is more about your fellow human's perspective.
  - stryan 4y ago
    The Dao De Jing, Mahabharata, and Plato's dialogues have been or are currently used as religious texts (the former two more then the latter, but the Neo-Platonism is/was a hell of a drug).
- mitchdoogle 4y ago
  I think the person you replied to simply meant they found no spiritual significance in religious texts. That is, their ONLY value is either as a piece of literature or as a historical recording of culture.
thomastjeffery 4y ago
In context, your reply sounds like a negative take, but I find it rather positive. I've always found good fiction enlightening. There is no need to be so serious about it. My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality. All too often, that means obsessing over obedience to a structure of rules/dogma, instead of confronting the reality right in front of us; like voting to restrict gay marriage so God will bless our country, instead of learning to empathize with people around us to become a better community.
- hn_version_0023 4y ago
  > My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality. Agreed. This is the part that really gets under my skin… its been my understanding for most of my life that the bible specifically is full of allegory, not history. Yet, so many many of the “believers” I encounter don’t know what “allegory” means. The bible is their literal truth! Tbh, knowing this isn’t helpful. It somehow makes me more paralyzed in dealing with literal believers. It always feels like they know they’re full of shit, but won’t admit it. There’s a disingenuousness to it that very deeply bothers me.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    Often it's because while they may "know they're full of shit", they won't admit it to themselves. Being able to think critically of religion means being agnostic or atheist. My assertion is that it's not you who is paralyzed, but anyone who cannot criticize their own position.
    - hn_version_0023 4y ago
      This is a good take, thanks! It feels like their paralysis is contagious, which is endlessly frustrating.
- padobson 4y ago
wincy 4y ago
I mean, I used to be an atheist. Like, going to Richard Dawkins on campus, sneering at how stupid Christians were rolling my eyes at every little thing atheist. For a good ten to fifteen years. Then I realized it was terrible for my mental health and just got over myself and adopted more of a Pascal’s Wager outlook. Like, I frankly don’t give a damn about the truth or falsity of religion anymore. That’s not the point. It lets me act as if my life has meaning regardless of whether or not that’s true, which even when I directly reflect on it is a small amount of comfort insulating me from the yawning abyss of existential terror I felt throughout all of my 20s and half of my teens. If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point. I don’t even care to explain the point really. But both me and my wife ran Meetup groups about being atheist and eventually decided reading Christian philosophy and teachings was a better bet than the slow crushing millstone of the weight of the universe awaiting me behind the curtain of materialism. There’s a lot of really bad stuff and I think Christianity needs reforming, but I still think it’s the better long term bet in terms of the wellbeing of me and my future generations.
- WXLCKNO 4y ago
  I know the universe is a cold void but I find tons of meaning in seeing my family and friends be happy. From my relative perception of what's good and what matters, that's sufficient. Perpetuating mass delusion through religion doesn't seem like the better bet.
  - solitus 4y ago
    Replace the word "religion" by "communal life philosophy" and perhaps you'll start understanding its actual value. I've been reading Stoic philosophers for some time now and it has helped me a lot. Christianity seems to take a lot from them and adds a mythical spin. I think the biggest issue with religion stems from the fact that many people fail to understand religious texts are not factual they are metaphorical. Unfortunately, throughout history (and still today) this misunderstanding has been used and led to an incalculable number of heinous crimes.
- snikeris 4y ago
  > If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point. The problem is expecting the dogma of a thousands years old tradition and book to be absolutely true. There are things in the Bible and Christianity that are basically tall tales. For example, I doubt Jesus was immaculately conceived, but it makes for a great story. People make up stories about remarkable people. I believe Jesus was a real person who had world-changing insights, but I'm afraid a lot of cruft has built up around him and been carried forward as literal truth. The challenge for an individual is separating the wheat from the chaff. Most of my thoughts on the matter are derived from Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.
hutattedonmyarm 4y ago
> f you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes. In fact, Harry Potter And The Sacred Text does exactly that!
swat535 4y ago
> Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones I have been downvoted many times (not sure why?) for stating this on HN, but I will state it again: It's sad that this line of thinking has taken over the modern time. We now have "science", so we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion". All can be explained through the scientific method and all other branches of human intellect are null and avoid. Of course, this comes from the new Atheists who influenced a lot of the younger generation years a go when they started but their ideas actually stems from older philosophers who shaped the modern day thinking. Mainly Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche (who was also influenced by Feuerbach), Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault. For example, What did Jean-Paul Sartre say? "Existence precedes essence" and you can _clearly_ see how this has affected the modern Atheism mentality in the 21st century. If existence precedes essence, then everything is relative and nothing can be objective and absolute; thus to claim things such as objective morality in the way that religion does is meaningless. Don't forget that Sartre said: "If God exists, I can't be free, but I am free. Therefore God does not exist". Once again, if you look carefully enough, you absolutely see this in the modern world. The New Atheists for example, took all their ideas and spread them from these philosophers. What was Hitchen's famous quote? He would constantly regurgitate Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people" which again.. is rooted from Sartre philosophy. There is a great talk about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition. For example, for Christianity they would be: Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman and tell me you're dealing with someone who has suspended his critical faculties. You are welcome to disagree with them of course, but to claim that we should simply replace these materials with math books is disingenuous. Just my 2c.
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  > we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion" Op didn't say anything about art or philosophy. You added that stuff in. Atheism doesn't preclude art or philosophy. > All can be explained through the scientific method As opposed to "all can be explained through God"? How is that any better?
lukas099 4y ago
I hold spirituality to be a choice to hold things sacred. Almost everyone holds something sacred, whether it's family bonds or whatever. You can also choose to hold more things sacred, even the entire world, without believing in divinities.
Aunche 4y ago
IMO, one benefit of religion that is difficult to capture anywhere else is that it creates a mutually supportive community. I personally can't get over sacrificing my own intellectual honesty for the sake in group acceptance, but in most cases, I do think this is a trade off worth making. Secular Jews seem to be able to have it both ways, though I'm not sure this is something easily replicable.

dboreham 4y ago

> This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist. Then try Buddhism? More of a philosophy than a religion, and seems to have hit on the idea thousands of years ago that most problems in humanity are to do with mental illness of one sort or another.

annyeonghada 4y ago
Buddhism is definitely a religion with a specific epistemology, claims on the supernatural (karma, cycle of samsara), manifestations of the divine (Bodhisattva), rituals, chants and prayers. Some Buddhist sects can be pretty radical, even. Buddhism as conceptualized in the western world is a marketing strategy that appeals to people thanks to the fact the Buddhism is exotic, the same reason Christian symbolism is à la mode in Asia (just see how many anime have Christian themes). If you could repackage Christianity to convince these people that it is new, exotic and exciting they would convert immediately. By the way, there are philosophical traditions, both in Buddhism and Christianity, that reject any supernatural claim and see religion as a useful but not true moral framework, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism P.S.: I'm an atheist. I'm not defending a religion or another.

lethologica 4y ago

I’ve known plenty of people who get a ton of meaning out of fictional works too. Just because you view it as fictional doesn’t mean it can’t have meaning.

Consultant32452 4y ago

The difference between Harry Potter and most religious texts is that the religious texts are often the result of thousands of years of evolutionary processes which refine them, and the people who have followed them have survived/thrived. It doesn't matter if the Bible/Koran/whatever is a fact or not. Religious beliefs/texts are an extension of human evolution and should be seen that way. Questioning their wisdom in helping humans thrive is like questioning the value of arms.

rajin444 4y ago
This answer is on the right track. There will always be outliers, but most humans have a fundamental need for “religion”. The west is in the process of creating a new one (modern liberal values), but as with most rewrites, you probably should have understood the existing solution before throwing it out.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  A friend of mine stated this as such: "every human able to reason has a religion-shaped hole in them; and that spot will be filled with something whether or not the human expects it to or wants it to." I submit that plenty of religious thought patterns (things and systems you are not allowed to question the wisdom of, obsequious deference to authority, etc.) exist outside the halls of churches. PG's essay on heresy comes to mind.
maxerickson 4y ago
Questioning specific things seems easy enough. Like proscriptions on pork or seafood; we have a pretty good understanding of the consequences of eating pork and don't necessarily have to rely on something that was a useful rule of thumb absent that knowledge.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  Your response looks like the output of a poorly written shell script that prints meaningless fact checks when someone mentions religion. Did you also know the universe wasn't created in 6 days?

bin_bash 4y ago

I think it can be interesting to approach religious teachings from a perennialist mindset: what’s common between all religions. There is a lot to learn about life and human nature in religion. You don’t have to believe in an afterlife or practice dogma to get something out of it.

klik99 4y ago

I disagree - I do not believe in any organized religion but I do like the Bible - almost all of Western society is built on it so there is a power in the words as you're tapping into something fundamental that's been bounced around culture for centuries. I dip into it occasionally and find some passage that really speaks to me. Admittedly I do ignore parts of it - there's a lot of "wives should be obedient" stuff in there that has not aged well for instance - and I read it as God representing something like the Chinese Dao - IE the impersonal and immaterial laws of nature, the way that things unfold, and faith in God being an active version of the Stoic idea that you can't change the things you don't have control over, so just let it be.

Clubber 4y ago

To me, Theology is really philosophy + God. That's kinda the beauty of it, you can interpret it however you like or however it fits you at the time. If you don't want the + God right now, just consider the philosophy. >Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view Plato's The Cave allegory is relevant, even though no one would ever live in a cave like that and it's obviously fiction. Some people treat the Bible as a historical text, but most don't. Some people believe the earth is flat too, there's always that 10-20%. Having said that, I tried reading the Bible but I couldn't get through all the begats. I do like hearing honest people discuss it though. Like anything, it can certainly be weaponized.

sidibe 4y ago
I think philosophy without faith is nice but doesn't have the same benefits at all. I think what makes religious people happier is the strong sense of community and offloading some of their existential angst to a third party.

zivkovicp 4y ago

I am also a non-believer, but I think there is room for religion even for those who have a difficult time with the "fairy tale" aspect of it. Personally, I do not, but I'm thinking about giving it a shot. The thing is that the stories in religious books help paint a picture of life and offer anecdotes on how one can navigate it. There is no need to look for enlightenment, just practical advice on how to deal with tough life situations and help you find motivation and strength to power through. Thousands of years of observing and documenting people's lives through stories and metaphors has value, even for us non-believers. I think you'd even be surprised how many people who regularly attend church services don't actually believe in the mystic aspect of it all; it's the community and guidance that have the most value to them.

ryandrake 4y ago
You can pick and choose philosophy and morals from a religion (or multiple religions) without buying the whole farm. To me, this seems like the right way to go. Cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the cruel parts and weird, supernatural stuff. Church selection seems to play a big role. I don't know too much about it but from other commenters, there are apparently churches that emphasize the mysticism and paranormal side of Christianity, some that focus on the texts, some that mostly deal with hero-worship and the hero's origin story, some that are basically political Trump rallies, and some more laid back ones that are basically social/music clubs.

aahortwwy 4y ago

You really don't see the difference between popular fiction and cultural texts that have survived for thousands of years? How do you feel about The Iliad, Plato's dialogues, the Mahabharata, Tao Te Ching, or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Do they also offer "no more meaning in your world" than modern fantasy novels? I didn't think being an atheist meant closing ones mind to human culture. Guess I've been doing it wrong.

elteto 4y ago
None of these are religious texts (as in, the Bible, the Koran, etc) . What are you talking about?
- jhugo 4y ago
  Do you have any more evidence for some of the claims made in those texts than you do for the claims made in religious texts? Read them all as fiction, but they're still culturally significant and a lot can be learned by reading them, even if all you are learning is more about your fellow human's perspective.
- stryan 4y ago
  The Dao De Jing, Mahabharata, and Plato's dialogues have been or are currently used as religious texts (the former two more then the latter, but the Neo-Platonism is/was a hell of a drug).
mitchdoogle 4y ago
I think the person you replied to simply meant they found no spiritual significance in religious texts. That is, their ONLY value is either as a piece of literature or as a historical recording of culture.

thomastjeffery 4y ago

In context, your reply sounds like a negative take, but I find it rather positive. I've always found good fiction enlightening. There is no need to be so serious about it. My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality. All too often, that means obsessing over obedience to a structure of rules/dogma, instead of confronting the reality right in front of us; like voting to restrict gay marriage so God will bless our country, instead of learning to empathize with people around us to become a better community.

hn_version_0023 4y ago
> My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality. Agreed. This is the part that really gets under my skin… its been my understanding for most of my life that the bible specifically is full of allegory, not history. Yet, so many many of the “believers” I encounter don’t know what “allegory” means. The bible is their literal truth! Tbh, knowing this isn’t helpful. It somehow makes me more paralyzed in dealing with literal believers. It always feels like they know they’re full of shit, but won’t admit it. There’s a disingenuousness to it that very deeply bothers me.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Often it's because while they may "know they're full of shit", they won't admit it to themselves. Being able to think critically of religion means being agnostic or atheist. My assertion is that it's not you who is paralyzed, but anyone who cannot criticize their own position.
  - hn_version_0023 4y ago
    This is a good take, thanks! It feels like their paralysis is contagious, which is endlessly frustrating.
padobson 4y ago

wincy 4y ago

I mean, I used to be an atheist. Like, going to Richard Dawkins on campus, sneering at how stupid Christians were rolling my eyes at every little thing atheist. For a good ten to fifteen years. Then I realized it was terrible for my mental health and just got over myself and adopted more of a Pascal’s Wager outlook. Like, I frankly don’t give a damn about the truth or falsity of religion anymore. That’s not the point. It lets me act as if my life has meaning regardless of whether or not that’s true, which even when I directly reflect on it is a small amount of comfort insulating me from the yawning abyss of existential terror I felt throughout all of my 20s and half of my teens. If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point. I don’t even care to explain the point really. But both me and my wife ran Meetup groups about being atheist and eventually decided reading Christian philosophy and teachings was a better bet than the slow crushing millstone of the weight of the universe awaiting me behind the curtain of materialism. There’s a lot of really bad stuff and I think Christianity needs reforming, but I still think it’s the better long term bet in terms of the wellbeing of me and my future generations.

WXLCKNO 4y ago
I know the universe is a cold void but I find tons of meaning in seeing my family and friends be happy. From my relative perception of what's good and what matters, that's sufficient. Perpetuating mass delusion through religion doesn't seem like the better bet.
- solitus 4y ago
  Replace the word "religion" by "communal life philosophy" and perhaps you'll start understanding its actual value. I've been reading Stoic philosophers for some time now and it has helped me a lot. Christianity seems to take a lot from them and adds a mythical spin. I think the biggest issue with religion stems from the fact that many people fail to understand religious texts are not factual they are metaphorical. Unfortunately, throughout history (and still today) this misunderstanding has been used and led to an incalculable number of heinous crimes.
snikeris 4y ago
> If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point. The problem is expecting the dogma of a thousands years old tradition and book to be absolutely true. There are things in the Bible and Christianity that are basically tall tales. For example, I doubt Jesus was immaculately conceived, but it makes for a great story. People make up stories about remarkable people. I believe Jesus was a real person who had world-changing insights, but I'm afraid a lot of cruft has built up around him and been carried forward as literal truth. The challenge for an individual is separating the wheat from the chaff. Most of my thoughts on the matter are derived from Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.

hutattedonmyarm 4y ago

> f you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes. In fact, Harry Potter And The Sacred Text does exactly that!

swat535 4y ago

> Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones I have been downvoted many times (not sure why?) for stating this on HN, but I will state it again: It's sad that this line of thinking has taken over the modern time. We now have "science", so we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion". All can be explained through the scientific method and all other branches of human intellect are null and avoid. Of course, this comes from the new Atheists who influenced a lot of the younger generation years a go when they started but their ideas actually stems from older philosophers who shaped the modern day thinking. Mainly Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche (who was also influenced by Feuerbach), Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault. For example, What did Jean-Paul Sartre say? "Existence precedes essence" and you can _clearly_ see how this has affected the modern Atheism mentality in the 21st century. If existence precedes essence, then everything is relative and nothing can be objective and absolute; thus to claim things such as objective morality in the way that religion does is meaningless. Don't forget that Sartre said: "If God exists, I can't be free, but I am free. Therefore God does not exist". Once again, if you look carefully enough, you absolutely see this in the modern world. The New Atheists for example, took all their ideas and spread them from these philosophers. What was Hitchen's famous quote? He would constantly regurgitate Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people" which again.. is rooted from Sartre philosophy. There is a great talk about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition. For example, for Christianity they would be: Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman and tell me you're dealing with someone who has suspended his critical faculties. You are welcome to disagree with them of course, but to claim that we should simply replace these materials with math books is disingenuous. Just my 2c.

schwartzworld 4y ago
> we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion" Op didn't say anything about art or philosophy. You added that stuff in. Atheism doesn't preclude art or philosophy. > All can be explained through the scientific method As opposed to "all can be explained through God"? How is that any better?

lukas099 4y ago

I hold spirituality to be a choice to hold things sacred. Almost everyone holds something sacred, whether it's family bonds or whatever. You can also choose to hold more things sacred, even the entire world, without believing in divinities.

Aunche 4y ago

IMO, one benefit of religion that is difficult to capture anywhere else is that it creates a mutually supportive community. I personally can't get over sacrificing my own intellectual honesty for the sake in group acceptance, but in most cases, I do think this is a trade off worth making. Secular Jews seem to be able to have it both ways, though I'm not sure this is something easily replicable.