What isn't? — Vera Mont

Well for one I just explained why it's a fiction. Nothing is really alive, it's just matter. Life is an illusion.

Is that a spiritual yearning, though, or an intellectual desire to make sense of things? — Vera Mont

There is no such thing as a spiritual yearning.

Nature works. Just go out in the woods, or walk along a beach; gaze at stars or learn about coral reefs. — Vera Mont

Something not often commented, is that nature has a different meaning for moderns. In the past, nature was not only nurturing but also destructive, and it was widely understood that everything in nature is subject to death and decay as well as birth and life. The point of the idea of salvation whether in Semitic or Asiatic religions, was to transcend nature, to realise one's identity with what is beyond coming-and-going, birth-and-death. Whereas for our culture, having rejected any idea of the supernatural, nature herself now becomes the only real representation of purity, through the 'awe of nature' and the supposed innocence of the natural environment and first-nations peoples.

In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. In popular Darwinism, the good is the well-adapted, and the value of that to which the organism adapts itself is unquestioned or is measured only in terms of further adaptation. However, being well adapted to one’s surroundings is tantamount to being capable of coping successfully with them, of mastering the forces that beset one. Thus the theoretical denial of the spirit’s antagonism to nature – even as implied in the doctrine of interrelation between the various forms of organic life, including man – frequently amounts in practice to subscribing to the principle of man’s continuous and thoroughgoing domination of nature. Regarding reason as a natural organ does not divest it of the trend to domination or invest it with greater potentialities for reconciliation. On the contrary, the abdication of the spirit in popular Darwinism entails the rejection of any elements of the mind that transcend the function of adaptation and consequently are not instruments of self-preservation. Reason disavows its own primacy and professes to be a mere servant of natural selection. On the surface, this new empirical reason seems more humble toward nature than the reason of the metaphysical tradition. Actually, however, it is arrogant, practical mind riding roughshod over the ‘useless spiritual,’ and dismissing any view of nature in which the latter is taken to be more than a stimulus to human activity. The effects of this view are not confined to modern philosophy. — Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason, P11

There is no such thing as a spiritual yearning. — Darkneos

I suspect that might be more accurately stated as "I have not experienced a spiritual yearning, and therefore do not believe that anyone has or can."

I don't think we disagree on the large picture, but we seem to differ on the scope of the solution. — Manuel

I didn't offer it as a solution to anything I consider a problem. Just a possible approach to some "spiritual" dimension people might miss if they wean off religion.

But what I'm adding, is that even if those people get relief from nature, it is not enough to ward off suicide, or waves of meaninglessness or depression for many. — Manuel

Nor does religion.

Except it is that simple, sorry you can't accept that. Religion overall has been a net negative for society, it's stagnated progress, and as we have seen recently it has reversed it in some ways. — Darkneos

Can you cite some sociological studies that show that religion has been a net negative for society? What leads you to think your unargued opinions are true? On what basis do you think you can speak for others as to what makes life worth living or bearable for them? And what makes you think Buddhism is not a religion? If you think that, you are woefully ignorant.

In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. — Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason, P11

Inasmuch as they thought that, then so much the worse for traditional theology and metaphysics. Such an attitude could never be beneficial for this life, this life which is all we really know, and hence all we should really care about.

The point of the idea of salvation whether in Semitic or Asiatic religions, was to transcend nature, to realise one's identity with what is beyond coming-and-going, birth-and-death. — Wayfarer

Yah, the whole exceptional, we're above-all-that, reality-can't-get-me cuz I made up a supernatural protector delusion. I got that. But in order for salvation to take place, first you have to be damned. For pissing off that same supernatural entity you then rely on to save you from death - at a price. Just throw a couple dozen babies off the battlements; just burn a pile of your best cattle; just cut the hearts out of your most virile young warriors, just torture this demigod to death....
I don't like it. So I became an atheist.
(without any dogma)

Yes, that is the terrible, childish, absurd, anti-life side of religion; which is not to say that that is all religion can be, but those kinds of attitudes human life can certainly do without.

Can you cite some sociological studies that show that religion has been a net negative for society? What leads you to think your unargued opinions are true? On what basis do you think you can speak for others as to what makes life worth living or bearable for them? And what makes you think Buddhism is not a religion? If you think that, you are woefully ignorant. — Janus

Considering that some of the happiest countries on the planet are atheist and some of the worst aren't that's a good start. Buddhism is a religion but not to the extent others are, if anything even Buddhists themselves wouldn't call it that.

Sounds like you're just scared.

Considering that some of the happiest countries on the planet are atheist and some of the worst aren't that's a good start. Buddhism is a religion but not to the extent others are, if anything even Buddhists themselves wouldn't call it that.

Sounds like you're just scared. — Darkneos

Again, that's a simplistic assessment, as though there are no other political and economic factors in play which could determine which are the happiest countries (a metric which is itself contentious, because hard to measure).

Many Buddhist traditions are just as religious as Christianity or Islam. It seems you don't want to educate yourself, but prefer to confine yourself to hasty, simple-minded judgments. As such you will remain part of the problem, not the solution.

It's laughably ironic that someone who has displayed so much resentment and self-righteous attitude, should resort to ad hominem and accuse me of being "scared"; all it shows is your apparent lack of ability to mount a cogent argument. Religion, it seems, is your own personal bogeyman. I suggest you take a good look at your motivations and try to be more measured in your assessments of both sociological phenomena and your interlocutors.

Again, that's a simplistic assessment, as though there are no other political and economic factors in play which could determine which are the happiest countries (a metric which is itself contentious, because hard to measure).

Many Buddhist traditions are just as religious as Christianity or Islam. It seems you don't want to educate yourself, but prefer to confine yourself to hasty, simple-minded judgments. As such you will remain part of the problem, not the solution. — Janus

Sounds like you don't understand Buddhism that well, which is understandable, most don't.

It just sounds like you really don't want to accept the facts that overall it looks like religion is a net negative, especially given how a lot of the social issues in the US are rooted in it.

If anyone here isn't forming a cogent argument, it's you. You keep insisting it's not when the evidence is plain to see. All you have is indignation, and that ain't worth much.

I'd be glad to see religion phase out over time, at least then you'd be able to reason with folks better.

Yes, that is the terrible, childish, absurd, anti-life side of religion; which is not to say that that is all religion can be, but those kinds of attitudes human life can certainly do without. — Janus

That's all "salvation" can be.
Religion may provide many benefits besides eternal life for the chosen believers: it can provide tribal unity, community, emotional and material support, relief from labour via festivals and holy days, some minor protections from the depradations of overlords, rites of passage, guarantee of bloodline descent of property via marriage laws, supremacy of a caste or gender, education of a sort, moral guidelines for the making of legal systems (uneven, at best, justice-wise), work for builders, artists, artisans, third sons and sadistic thugs, escape for the marriage-averse, comfort, merriment and feasts.

I mean, I've seen many people hang on to life due to a belief that there will be a better life after this one.

It's not true of course, nor does it resonate with me in any way. But my experience just shows me that for some people it does work, like nature does to you, and to me, to some extent.

I mean, I've seen many people hang on to life due to a belief that there will be a better life after this one. — Manuel

That sounds like a contradiction. Why would someone who believes he'll keep living after he dies hang on to a life he finds hard to tolerate? Why, for that matter, are so many Christians hanging on so hard to this sinful world, when their lord is calling them home?

in order for salvation to take place, first you have to be damned — Vera Mont

Yes, the jealous god dies hard.

Plenty of atheist dogma on display in this thread, but then, that's what you're going to get as soon as post an OP with such a title. Like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River.

Religion may provide many benefits besides eternal life for the chosen believers: it can provide tribal unity, community, emotional and material support, relief from labour via festivals and holy days, some minor protections from the depradations of overlords, rites of passage, guarantee of bloodline descent of property via marriage laws, supremacy of a caste or gender, education of a sort, moral guidelines for the making of legal systems (uneven, at best, justice-wise), work for builders, artists, artisans, third sons and sadistic thugs, escape for the marriage-averse, comfort, merriment and feasts. — Vera Mont

That doesn't sound like a religion thing that sounds like a community thing, which you can have without religion.

The minor protections from overlords is laughable though as the faith in question historically was often such a thing. Education is a bit complex as with the religion in charge you got what they said you should know, which was an issue with church folk in the past usually being among the few learned folk.

Not to mention the hundreds of years of persecution of minority groups because of it: blacks, asians, native americans, LGBT people. As I said before, it was only recently that being atheistic isn't some blight on your character. Growing up you're pretty much taught that those without religion are evil or backwards (heard it alot in my faith as a kid).

There really isn't a good reason to keep it around. You can have all that stuff without religion, but a lot of the evil in the world had religion at it's heart. You'd be surprised what those who believe they are "God's chosen" can be capable of.

I'm honestly shocked this is even up for debate.

Plenty of atheist dogma on display in this thread, but then, that's what you're going to get as soon as post an OP with such a title. Like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. — Wayfarer

Atheist dogma is an oxymoron.

I was going to say you're providing a stellar example thereof, but I'll let it go.

Then you don't understand dogma.

Providing facts isn't dogma last I checked.

Have it your own way then; I'm not going to waste any more time.

You're ignorant of history and current events, this was already a waste of time.

That's all "salvation" can be. — Vera Mont

I agree, if by salvation you mean securing a place in heaven (or at least believing you have). Your list of social benefits is well thought out.

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights.

I agree, if by salvation you mean securing a place in heaven (or at least believing you have). Your list of social benefits is well thought out. — Janus

They invent the problem and sell the solution.

The Nazis didn't murder the Jews because of religious differences. A Jew who disclaimed his Judaism was no safer than a devout one.

Nazi Germany is a good example of a war that was not about religion. It was about ethnicity. — Hanover

There's a bit more history to this stuff.
The founder of Protestantism wrote On the Jews and Their Lies around 1543.
The Church of England also published a report in 2019 on the topic.
In a way, the Holocaust was part of a wretchedly long (sub)culture, an abominable "tradition", that you could hope ended, though it doesn't quite seem like it. :/

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights. — Darkneos

Some religion, yes. I’d be reluctant to categorize all religion as anti-LGBT though.

Here in the US, there’s a particularly vocal and powerful group of the evangelical persuasion that’s behind a lot of this— as well as being anti-abortion.

But you see it elsewhere, too. Uganda just passed a highly restrictive law, for example.

They were formed by traveling pastors, often with limited education, with fire and brimstone speeches in their distinctive barking voice, with the powers of heaven causing wild gyrations, speaking in tongues, and protecting them from the serpents they handle. — Hanover

American expressions of culture and religion fascinate me. ( I say that as an Australian).

That sounds like a contradiction. Why would someone who believes he'll keep living after he dies hang on to a life he finds hard to tolerate? Why, for that matter, are so many Christians hanging on so hard to this sinful world, when their lord is calling them home? — Vera Mont

Most people are afraid to die. Also, I think for some of those who yearn for eternal life, the only negative thing about this life is pain and dying. Some people are lucky and die in their sleep without pain. I also don't believe most faith is without its share of doubts, but the phenomenon of religious fundamentalist suicide bombers demonstrates that if the faith is strong enough fear of pain and death can be overcome.

For pissing off that same supernatural entity you then rely on saving you - for a price. — Vera Mont

Yep. "Salvation seeking" is – a self-abnegating Stockholm Syndrome hostage fantasy – older than the oldest "sacred" scripture. "Spiritual" savants, spooked in their cribs by "spirits" and since having learned helplessly to "hope" for permanent escape from their "wretched" bodies in order to become / return to being "happy spirits" for a price, deny natura naturans – e.g. "angels", "astral projections" & "perpetual motions". I'm sure @Wayfarer et al will (dogmatically) misrecognize my take on "spirituality" ... :halo:

Some religion, yes. I’d be reluctant to categorize all religion as anti-LGBT though.

Here in the US, there’s a particularly vocal and powerful group of the evangelical persuasion that’s behind a lot of this— as well as being anti-abortion.

But you see it elsewhere, too. Uganda just passed a highly restrictive law, for example. — Mikie

You’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t. Most religions have something against it.

Among the Abrahamic religions, certainly. Not so sure about eastern religions.