Beside the most important religions (namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and, for its cultural legacy, inherited by the two first, Judaism), there is a couple of non-theistic or even atheistic religions: Buddhism, at least if we consider the core teachings of the Buddha and the Theravada tradition (or some schools of Mahayana, Chan and Zen that put emphasis on the anatta/anatman/no-self doctrine); Jainism, which is dualistic, believes in the necessity for the eternal spirits to free themselves from the matter where they are incarnate in order to escape from suffering, and rejects the idea of an eternal creator; Confucianism which can be considered agnostic (depending on the interpretation of the notion of "Heaven"), and is more concerned with this world and how to bring harmony in human society; LaVeyan Satanism, more or less conceived as a religion for entertainment; and some other cults less known from the public.
Do you think these religions could have a legitimate place in a secular society?
What do you value the most: atheism or secularism?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
People should not decide what others should believe in. As long as they don't harm anyone and don't indoctrinate kids they can believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. I personally believe that the world would be a better place if religion was gone but it isn't my place to decide what others should believe.
"Atheistic Religion"
Not to be the contrarian, but I don't think that can exist. Breaking those two words into what their separate definitions creates a nonsenceory meaning/sentence as follows.
"A belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, based upon disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
I do not sport either of them and find no goals in them. I understand, however, they have certain debate value for some who need to take a stand on something, anything, to achieve some sense of purpose in their lives. Religion, on the other hand, ascribes purpose to others negating the need to debate its relevance. I'm the odd man out. To me, it's all inconsequential to my life. Playing the game one way or the other, or both, simply makes no difference to my sense of finality. I look at the living of life as a mission to make it as enjoyable as possible. Fettering it up with arguments, and jousting with one man's logic versus another man's assertions is not fun. If anything, it's counter-intuitive and an assault on the intellect. Best to understand one's own initiatives in life and possess the will to pursue them, alone if necessary, to that final hour when remaining consciousness passes self-judgement of a life well lived or needlessly lost.
"I understand, however, they have certain debate value for some who need to take a stand on something, anything, to achieve some sense of purpose in their lives."
I don't know if you were trying to insult people or if it was unintentional. Either way, it happened. If you really think that is the reason why we do this: if you really think we have no other purpose in our lives than to argue to fill some gapeing hole, then you are sadly, sorely mistaken. This is about persecution. This is about civil rights and liberties. This is about getting rid of the bigotry, the hatred, and the unwarranted superiority complex inducing nonsense that Is religion. If you can't see that, then you are blind.
No, taking an opportunity to attack a person's religious sensibilities is the lot of the anti-theist. Understanding the theist and yet quietly opposing his assertions is the atheist's lot. Common to both is the sense of opposition they feel towards the theist, with common rationality though displaying different actions. The secularist simply opposes any kind of theist presence in affairs of state.
The declaration of atheism acknowledges that humanity has no purpose in life, is extant by the physics of nature alone and by that virtue has no legitimate claim on life. There is no reward in it. There is no return on investing in it. There is nothing that becomes of it. There is only the innate will to survive and that alone is no warrant for the right to live it. However, live it we do and most times in a maelstrom of creating opposition within our own kind for no perceivable good. Tell me this is good living.
Two people asserting themselves in opposition, without a known legitimate purpose for their very lives other than to live them out, slays any logical plea for the arguments they present at all. If the atheist is cognizant of the purposelessness of his existence, why waste precious time seeking out the odiousness in life over the joy he can otherwise seek.
Or, is the odiousness in life his joy to pursue? This is the truth of it. Man seeks to belittle himself in the form of hurting other people. One man's religion being another man's belly laugh, he has set down his goals in adolescent displays of antagonistic behavior, centuries in evidence, and then you take contempt in my presenting you with yours despite your open display of it. I acknowledge mine as the truth that broad brushes man as a deviant of ill-conceived will towards his neighbor for any relevant topic he will attempt to excuse himself with.
Religions and their baggage, archaic constructs of ignorance, are fast approaching their own retreating horizons with the spears of the self-absorbed anti-theists and atheists close on their heals. Not exactly brave, the latter are opportunists looking to strike a blow to an already mortally wounded animal. Not exactly endearing, but very much a sampling of the human condition that I find embarrassing, I choose to remain a distant cousin of a species that routinely seeks to kill each others joy in life by killing their closely held assertions. Atheism, which I employ, is a silent opposition I declared against all religion and its trappings many years ago that needs no form of publication to be any more legitimate to me than it has in its silence.
It seems you and I have completely different views on what atheism is. Neither of us can make an absolute clame to correctness. Nor can either of us convince the other. Therefore, this discussion is pointless.
And, as for what you said at the beginning, I am more than willing to let religion die out on its own. I am also willing to speed up the process. But I never argue with any theist unless the come at me. Therefore, your "taking an opportunity to attack a person's religious sensibilities is the lot of the anti-theist" point is correct, but moot.
I don't think it will die. I think people will just continue to drift away from the monotheist religions, toward other stuff. But I hope this will be an overall good thing, decentralizing the power of religion. I guess time will tell.
"I guess time will tell."
The neutrality wall is always a good thing to lean on involving matters of time. I think, for that issue, I will do just that.
religions pedal a lot of lies as wisdom. Jainism and buddhism though say controvercial things with respect to god are still filled with absurd nonsense.
Jainism believes that the human soul must attain true knowledge (keval gynan) aand ascend to heaven to fulfil the duty of a god (which god depends on the level of karm - indra, vayu etc)
once you have fullfilled that role for a precet time you will descend as a prince wherin you must renounce everything and achieve a state of no karma (neither positive nor negative) and then when you die you may attain moksha - freedom from the circle of life and death.
based on this nonsense they make people fast rigourously for days - at one time when ascetics wished to gain moksha they would fast till death. (voluntary death by starvation!!!) and a whole lot of other nonsense.
Why would we need religion in the first place. It is just another human social construct. just as flawed as any other human construct with only one problem - we cannot question the damn thing.
We are better off without it. I would rather follow human rights or laws of the land I live in because it is decided by consensus and can be changed when believed to have become obsolete or irrelevant.
Jainism and Buddhism may or may not be monotheistic. They are certainly not atheistic. Buddhism is about losing your ego and merging with the Godhead. The lack of clarity in naming that final spiritual attainment does not qualify as godless. I do think certain meditation practices can have physical benefits when divested of all the religious imagery.
My desire for a secular society stems from my atheistic worldview. Atheism is not a method for building a society. Secularism is an approach to creating a common , neutral society for believers and non-believers to abide in.