Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality.
— baker

Of course. But when has spirituality been a factor in the mass support of religions? — Tom Storm

?
I think the distinction between religion and spirituality is mostly spurios, so I usually use a joint term.

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses.

It's the truth.

Some religious/spiritual people will actually say things to the effect "being born and raised into a religion only gives you a foot in the door, nothing more".

It would make little sense to tell children, "You're not really proper members of our religion yet". Have you ever noticed how in many religions, they talk about growing in faith, development, faith formation etc.?

The lines between insiders and outsiders, between members and non-members are sharp only for zealots, and, perhaps, secular religiologists, both of whom have characteristically low and abstract standards for what constitutes religious membership.

For those more serious, those lines are far less defined, certainly not defined in terms of "Tom Storm is not a member, but Nancy Crow is".

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding. — wonderer1

Having high expectations isn't necessarily painful. It is painful if it comes from a position of weakness, of loss, of dependence. If it comes from a position of entitlement or strength, then having high expectations is not painful.

The sooner we do, the sooner we can start to become a significant extraterrestrial species. — universeness

... in order to escape our problems, since we can't solve them! Lol.

Why do these realisations lead to melancholy or escapism? — Skalidris

Because they are incomplete, partial.

Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature?

Because it's not so clear what "human nature" actually is.

Why isn’t there a discipline that aims to build concepts that are closer to reality?

There is one. It's called "philosophy".

Why do we keep these intuitive concepts that we can’t even define and that are a poor reflection of reality?

Laziness; or, more likely, being too busy with day-to-day survival.

We have so many insights about human nature but yet we keep on using concepts that give us a completely unrealistic view of humans, and cause Weltschmerz whenever we try to learn more.

Because Weltschmerz doesn't hurt nearly enough.

Nevertheless, the secular community contains numerous members who were once devout. They found their way out. — Tom Storm

They were probaly never insiders, never "in it" to begin with. I used to make a point of reading people's exit stories from religion/spirituality. And in all cases I have seen, they had a poor knowledge of the religion/spirituality of which they claim to have been members of. So many former Catholics with such a shoddy knowledge of Catholic doctrine! Former Hare Krishnas, former Buddhists, former Mormons, all with really odd ideas about what their former religion teaches. Even if some of them have attained some positions of power and influence in their respective religious/spiritual groups.

These people were probably "members" in the sense that they were physically there in their religion's church or temple etc. But mentally, it was like they were on another planet.

What is interesting however are the amount of formerly religious people who lose their faith when they begin reading the Bible or Koran in earnest. — Tom Storm

Of course. If their initial "faith" didn't have much to do with the foundational texts of their proposed religion/spirituality to begin with, of course they will more likely experience those texts as alienating. (There are, of course, also those who buy a Bible and place it on a prominent spot in their home, and never read it.)

I've met quite a few former ministers, priests, and believers who came to atheism simply by asking the question, why do I believe in this?

Well, how silly of the church hierarchy to assume that the "believers" actually should know why they're there ...

Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality.

It's for that reason that I don't think this really is a philosophical difference as much as it is a physiological difference. — Hanover

To me, it is primarily a philosophical difference. To me, asking a drinker "How did you convince yourself that drinking alcohol was worth it?" makes perfect sense. It took me a while to learn not to actually ask such questions.

Because it's not at all just about the physiological differences, but about a person's willingness to override the intuitive reaction they have to something.

This is almost verbatim from a conversation with a female acquaintance: "I hate high heels. My feet hurt in them. ... But what can one do. Women must wear high heels."

Clearly, she has such a philosophy of life that enables her to override the pain; whereas some women don't. While both groups of women experience wearing high heels as painful.

So my question to you is: do you think that it is the case for alcohol? That it is mostly genetics and there isn't much we can do about it. — Skalidris

It's about how we talk about it, isn't it?

If someone comes to the discussion with the conviction that "everyone is solely responsible for themselves", then such a person will favor such explanations of alcoholism that are in line with that (e.g. "some people just have weak wills"). While someone who believes in the overwhelming power of genetics will just shrug their shoulders and perhaps hope for some medication that can override the genetic defect.
And so on.

It is the result of genetics. As the study notes, generally, 50% of the cases of alcoholism are inherited. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603686/ — Hanover

Okay. But whether a genetic predisposition will express itself depends also on environmental and other factors.

I'm cautious of blaming "genetics" for anything, because blaming "genetics" tends to be a way to absolve the blamer for any responsibility for how they treat the blamed.


All in all, alcohol use and abuse is a very complex topic. So discussing it isn't merely about alcohol, but also about many preconceived notions with which people approach talking about alcohol and social and psychological topics in general.

Almost everyone who tries alcohol for the first time finds it disgusting, and the first time being drunk is also not necessarily pleasant. But social pressure makes you do it more and more, and allow it to become a pleasurable habit. — Skalidris

There is an explanation that nobody likes their first sip of alcohol, or coffee, or the first puff from a cigarette. These are acquired tastes. It takes deliberate effort to override one's body's natural negative response to them. And it's this deliberate effort to override one's body's natural negative response to a substance or activity that bonds the person to that substance or activity.

My thread was mostly about why we keep on feeding these habits as it promotes escapism and gives less importance to meaningful social interactions.

It seems the crucial element here is in deliberately overriding one's intuitive impulses. This is what becoming "civilized" or "cultured" comes down to, for better or for worse.

For example, when your first impulse is to tell someone "God, you're ugly in that dress!" and you stop yourself, that's an example of deliberately overriding your impulse, and in turn, you're going to be perceived as "cultured".
But it seems this pattern extends to other things as well, such as alcohol.

Some people instantly find alcohol pleasurable, from the fist drink. Many people will tell you that on drinking, it was the first time they felt normal or had a sense of wellbeing. — Tom Storm

But perhaps at that point they had already lost their "drug virginity" to something else.
For example, they have already abused other substances that induce a slight buzz, such as sugar or coffee. Or glue or paint thinner. The stuff many children have been fed in modern times is pretty much setting them up on the course of substance abuse; with all that sugary fizzy drinks and sugary or fatty foods, they are already in a state of buzz. Then they quickly move over to energy drinks with lots of sugar and caffeine. By the time they begin to consume alcohol, they are already seasoned substance abusers, so it's no wonder they like it. (And then easily move on to other drugs.)

Using substances may well be a path some people adopt to manage significant trauma or anxiety disorders.

But this is a maladaptive approach.

What I've heard of alcoholics describe as a lifelong urge that has to be suppressed every waking moment not to drink that first drink or that will result in a complete lack of control/.../. — Hanover

I think this is an American thing, although made popular via 12 Step philosophy.
It has that American black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking in it. There is a culturally specific element in how people will interpret their urges.

It's not as if Native Americans, for example, who have extremely high rates of alcoholism, are just weak willed. It's part of their genetic response to the substance.

Do you know of any actual large-scale longitudinal studies that offer evidence of this genetic predisposition?

Obviously, there is a lot of alcoholism (and other forms of drug abuse) among Native Americans. But when considering the circumstances in which they tend to live, substance abuse is no surprise. Many live in a nightmare of a situation, in reservations, like in leper colonies, cut off from the rest of the world, with systemic racism against them, poverty as a background, dependent on state support.
Anyone, regardless of one's genetic predisposition, when placed in such grim prospects would struggle, and be more vulnerable to substance abuse.

The problem here is the old; how do we demonstrate that there are gods and how do we know what gods reveal? — Tom Storm

You keep bringing this up. To no avail.

On this the believers only have subjective interpretations.

That's like saying, "I totally refuse to obtain a degree in X, but I still feel entitled to get a job for which a degree in X is necessary."

You won't be able to see "a demonstration of proof of God" unless you qualify yourself for it.

With so many things in life, people are okay with this scenario: "In order to get X, you need to qualify yourself for it." Whether it's about education and employment, or romantic partners, credit from a bank, doing anything successfully, really.

But not whern it comes to religion/spirituality. This is where most people demand that no qualification is necessary or no qualification should be necessary. What one currently has should suffice to get a definitive judgment on a religious/spiritual matter. Period.

More at ProgressiveRegressive_Excerpt.docx — Art48

I think that's a caricature. It would take a bit to unpack it all.

I think so too, but in my experience, most people consider allowing for different perspectives as somehow wrong, a sign of weakness, self-doubt, lack of self-confidence, lack of knowing "how things really are".

Our previous prime-minister said that democracy means that we must also tolerate lies and wrong opinions. To him, there is just one correct way of seeing things.

Most people are like this:



"You're entitled to your wrong opinion, that's fine."

A pervasive refusal to try to learn. — fdrake

"Husband beats wife so that she ends up in the hospital with multiple fractures. Because she pervasively refused to learn what he sought to teach her."

Many teaching situations are like that: The teacher is authoritarian, the student (possibly not even considering themselves a student) is seen as completely inferior.

Often, people seem like they don't want to learn because they don't want to learn in such a teaching situation; because they cannot cope with the stark difference between what is nominally being taught and what is taught as the hidden curriculum (eg. "the tense system in English" vs. "one must unquestioningly submit to those in position of authority").

What if someone is able to learn, calculative, intelligent, wilful, determined, of sound mind and they still do not learn and grow? Still don't try to excise their errors and expand their strengths across many domains they are in fact able to? — fdrake

How can you know that they are in fact able to do so??

The question is, when others fall short of our expectations of them in this way, is the failure in their intent or in our failure to separate their perspective from our own norms? — Joshs

Allowing for another's perspective (and first of all, learning what it actually is), surely feels like lack of confidence on one's own part (for many people, at least).

Stupidity is typically a blameful judgement of moral culpability we level against others (or ourselves) which supposes bad intent. — Joshs

Yes. This also seemingly exculpates the one who calls another person stupid of their own bad faith, and places the whole responsibility for the quality of the interaction on the other person, the "stupid one".

This song captures well what I think stupidity is:


Pretense, faking; no sense of fear, loss, danger; lying; blindly seeking adoration from others; immaturity.

@LuckyR
When someone says something like "So you think you're better than me because you (drive a fancy car, have a lot of money, etc.)", I wouldn't simply take this at face value. Sometimes, this is an expression of contempt, sometimes it's envy, sometimes genuine low self-esteem.

And then, of course, some people also genuinely believe that they are better than others, and those others simply understand them as intended.

The backlash against Prius drivers in the 2000s was the same thing. It's the perceived "I'm better (purer) than you". — LuckyR

This seems strange. It sounds more like a projection.

Many non-drinkers I know are uncomfortable around drinkers. Do they feel threatened, at a loss, judgemental, bored? — Tom Storm

It's not merely a feeling. We're supposedly living in a democracy, but not when it comes to alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, and meat. We're supposed to consume all those, or at least approve of such consumption, or regret that due to some objective reason we can't consume them. Otherwise, we get judged, severely even.

If one is rich, then one can afford some "quirks and whims", but not otherwise.

If someone comes to visit to my house and lights a cigarette, and I tell them not to, I will be considered rude and weird.

Yeah, it's the same psychology as vegetarians making meat eaters uncomfortable. — LuckyR

Where on earth is that??
Where I live, not drinking alcohol or not eating meat is met at least with disdain.
When I was a vegetarian, I wouldn't dare tell that to my doctor if asked. If I again go vegetarian, I still wouldn't dare say so.

I wasn’t aware progress was a journey. Is that how you see it? — Tom Storm

It's pretty much what the word means.

If we hold women's rights or gay rights up as progressive issues we support, I don't think the next question should be, 'But where will that lead us?'

Why not??
Can you explain?
I think there are many unsaids here.

Qidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem.

So I'd say religions and spirituality are a way to maintain strong morals, but that it's not the only way. Some people just don't need to think about why they want to be loyal for example, they just are, because that's what they've been told they should do. I know some people who have strong morals but aren't spiritual or religious at all. — Skalidris

My working assumption here is that morality is a complex system that a single person cannot invent and enforce on their own, and it's a complex system that requires a metaphysical, transcendental component, hence the need to tie morality to religion/spirituality.

However, if you don't have strong dogmatic intuitions, I don't think you'll be likely to be religious or spiritual. It's my case, I don't have strong moral principles and I've never been attracted to spirituality or religion.

This seems self-explanatory.

However one should differentiate "requires" from "prefers". I'd say I "require coffee" first thing in the morning to get moving. I strongly prefer it, and if I happened to run out I would likely go through considerable measures to obtain a cup. But if all coffee ceased to exist from the world, I would simply have to go through my morning routines regardless. — Outlander

Coffee. Another thing that makes me drowsy. If I drink coffee in the morning, I'm likely going to be tired and drowsy the entire day, without getting much done.

On the other hand I stand by the fact for most responsible drinkers, alcohol makes one "more jovial" as in, relative to one's preexisting state of joviality.

Then, perhaps, my default state of joviality is more intense than that of most people. I'd describe myself as naturally optimistic, even to a fault

Take something very tedious and boring no one enjoys. I don't know, sorting a 5-gallon bucket's worth of buttons that have become unsorted. For example. If, in this fictional example, you had to do it anyway and it's something you simply don't enjoy, you can't force yourself to enjoy it, that is to say you can't artificially elevate your "happiness" on cue or command absent of external stimuli.

But why would one have to make oneself enjoy it? Whence this obsession with enjoying things?
If something needs to be done, it needs to be done. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily come into the equation.

And yes, I can usually find ways to make even work that is hard and perhaps tedious into something I appreciate. I do it by taking an interest in it.

I think we can delve into two different common "types" of people's personalities, which many are a mix of the two or others but for simplification we will distinguish two: "introverts" and "extroverts".

Also, another psychological pair comes to mind: producers and consumers.
People who are producers require less external stimuli, have longer attention spans, they have a natural understanding that producing things takes time and effort, so they don't get bored easily.

So, while I agree with most everything you've said I think the assertion that someone who "requires to consume particular substances" to say have fun and feel at home in a crowded or unfamiliar environment is an automatic, cut-and-dried "weakness" and "disadvantage" needs some revisiting.

Why would one be under the obligation "to have fun" or "to feel at home" just anywhere, with just anyone?
Where does it say that one needs to feel at home or have fun just anywhere??

I think you should watch the video. — schopenhauer1

I watched both, but I'm not sure what to make of them. First off, I don't appreciate mixing serious criticism with humor. I'm not sure what to make of this genre.
Generally, the US just seems strange to me, a world I cannot relate to. This is, pretty much, why it captures my interest.

Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). — javra

In this particular case though, there is an alternative explanation: According to Buddhist principles, Buddhists aren't supposed to drink alcohol or kill animals or be involved in the business of making alcohol or slaughtering animals. But they still want to drink alcohol and eat meat. And as far as the meat is concerned, the Buddhist precept against killing is not breached as long as one didn't kill the animal oneself, didn't order it to be killed, or has no reason to believe that it was killed for one specifically. So the Buddhists found a convenient way around the Buddhist precepts and allow people of other religions to live among the Buddhists and to do the dirty work of brewing alcohol and slaughtering animals.
How the Buddhists thought that this wasn't going to backfire ...

*I can hardly wait to tell ya'll 'I told you so!'*

Ha ha.

I can easily imagine myself being busy for all eternity planting plants and never getting bored or tired of it. Trees, bushes, grasses, flowers. But mostly trees. I'd love that.

Religions regularly provide strong opposition to progressive ideas — Tom Storm

Progressive toward what?
What are those ideas (that religions tend to oppose) progressing to, leading to?

An untreated disease can also be said to "progress", as in 'worsen the person's health status' but we don't view that "progress" positively.

I like it. But this is hard to put into practice. Particularly if the world largely rejects this. Speaking personally, I like to blame and judge (to some extent) and the way I make sense of the world has been shaped irrevocably by concepts I can't transcend. How could one escape? Because even in recognizing the accuracy of your account, the temptation to stick with familiar patterns is irresistible. I wonder how one can be a human being and not be bound by a bunch of contingent and culturally constructed bullshit? — Tom Storm

Why should it be otherwise?
What is the ideal you're trying to live up to?
And why?

Since then, we've learned that bacteria and viruses cause disease.
But the false teachings of Jesus are enshrined in scripture.
The result? Google “Christian parent deny medical treatment child dies" — Art48

This sounds like a rather modern phenomenon.

There are characteristic differences between Christians of the Old World and Christians of the New World.

Refusing medications, denial of evolution, and such on "religious grounds" are unheard of in Europe, until very recently.
It's in the Americas that Christians can be extremely strict in following religious rules.

In Europe, if a Catholic priest has a girlfriend and children (even though he is supposed to be celibate), nobody bats an eyelid; or at least until very recently it's been like that. If a Catholic woman uses contraceptives or has an abortion, nothing happens, even though those are grounds for excommunication. In the US, however, they seem to actually follow the rules, though, and they excommunicate people for such things.

Because of these differences, I wouldn't blame religion itself like the OP; something else is going on. I don't know what exactly that is, but something needs to account for the way religiosity is practiced "the old way" vs. "the new way".

A Christian "friend" once said to me, "A truth that doesn't condemn the one who speaks it is no truth at all."

I mean if you only accept what you like then damn man, that's some straight prejudice right there. And tells me you're pretty much only down to see the world through your own perspective, fuck everyone else, fuck the fundamental condition of all life. — Vaskane

Which is so ironic, coming from someone with a position like yours.

But here's a quick summary of Nietzsche's views on the Jews from The Antichrist. Which Highlights the value of resentment within Judaism -- to say Nay to every former valuation that represented an ascending evolution of life.

All this says something about Nietzsche, but not necessarily about anyone or anything else.

Where as your argument is "you're not accepting their God argument and that's not fair! Which makes me feel atheism is the cause of anti-semitism."

That's not my argument. You won't even correctly capture what I'm saying.

You, Nietzsche, and much of mankind are doing this same thing, acting by the formula:

"You are whatever I say that you are.
You think whatever I say that you think.
You feel whatever I say that you feel.
Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.
You actions mean whatever I say that your actions mean.
You words mean whatever I say that your words mean.
I am the boss of you."

Pretty much every parent, kindergarden nurse, teacher, psychiatrist, social worker, boss, police officer, IRS agent, anyone with any bit of power over the other person does this.

I suppose that's "master morality": imposing one's own image of others upon those others, holding others responsible to this image, and punishing them if they don't.

I mean okay, then explain Christian anti-Semitism.

They are competing religions. Just like Christians are opposed to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion that isn't Christianity. Competing religions cannot peacefully coexist (other than in the sense of negative peace, where the parties involved simply don't have the material means for warfare). There is no profound reason for religions being intolerant of eachother. It simply comes from being different religions (regardless of what they actually propose to teach; for example, they can teach "non-violence" or "love thy enemy" but given the opportunity, they go on killing sprees just like everyone else, as long as material circumstances permit).

If you don't hear much about, say, Christian anti-islamism, anti-buddhism, or anti-hinduism, etc. that has to do with those not being in such close geographic proximity to Christianity as Judaism. On the other hand, go to Asia and look at the arguments Christian missionaries have against the native religions there, and there's full-blown Christian anti-islamism, anti-buddhism, or anti-hinduism, etc. We just don't hear much about that here in the West, ti doesn't exactly make it to the news.

For comparison, you could also try to look into various Asian supremacisms and the negative view they have of Christianity, European history, being white, being "Western" etc. It's tempting to ascribe that to the bad colonial history, of course. But Asian supremacisms are older than that, and go deeper.

If you look at the bigger picture, it offers a very different perspective on the matter.

Oh wait, it follows the same formula as Judaism ... Just like Anti-Semitism follows the same formula, which is highly Ironic that an anti-semite is what he hates.

So the Jews that favorably received Nietzschean theories about Judaism and anti-semitism were actually originally interested in finding ways to undermine anti-semites? As in, "Look at them, they hate us for nothing!" This actually makes sense.

There is a popular theory that people who hate others do so out of their own insecurity, weakness, because they feel threatened by them.

But, and this isn't mentioned very often, it's also possible that they hate (or more like, despise) others because they feel entitled to do so, because they feel entitled to what those others have.

Of course, it's more ego-friendly to think that those who hate one do so because of their own insecurity, weakness.
It's far less friendly to one's ego to think that one is being hated or despised because the haters feel entitled to do so.

fuck the fundamental condition of all life.

Given what Nietzsche seems to have meant by "affirmation of life", I simply think that he was wrong, operating out of some romantic ideal, failing to account for the existential boredom that results from hedonic pursuits.

So?

If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. And yes, Jesus' message is definitely slave morality as well. — frank

But only if they are slaves to God. Not to just anyone. That's the point, and the difference between being slave to man and being slave to God.

Now go on and read mate — Vaskane

It's not about merely reading it, is it. It's about liking it, agreeing with it.

And if hate and resentment are important to them, then they can hold on to it and expect the same formula to be applied to them. — Vaskane

To what end?
Can you tell?

God said it was okay for me to ignore their revelations, see how that works? — Vaskane

This is disgracefully facile. It goes to show you have no respect for those you presume to analyze.

Basically any argument that asserts God gave me X is dumb af as it can't be proven.

Irrelevant. What Nietzsche is doing (and now you, along with him) is plain old authoritarianism, a kind of cultural imperialism.

You could read Theodor Lessings Der Jüdische Selbsthass, or Jacob Golomb's Nietzsche and Zion. You may actually come into a more informed opinion rather than just basing your opinion on emotional reactions.

It's not an "emotional reaction". It's about fairness.

I'm not a theist, nor do I particularly like theists in general. So I'm not defending them on this count. But to go so far as to presume to analyze someone, and yet dismiss as irrelevant that which they consider important to them?? I would not do that. Perhaps this disqualifies me from being an Übermensch such as yourself.


So here's an Übermensch for you:

It stems from a weird inverse of morals whereby if a group is perceived to be an underdog they must be morally the right side. As long as they are "fighting" a "hegemon" and who are "occupiers" they are then "justified" is somehow the thinking. — schopenhauer1

Where I live, this is exactly the strategy of right-wingers.

On a general note: I'm not American and like some others here, I don't quite recognize "leftists" in your descriptions.

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want").
— baker

Indeed. Self-righteousness becomes its own smug example of non-humility. — schopenhauer1

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the importance of _t_talking the _t_alk.

There are many things in life that one is supposed to understand on one's own, without anyone explaining them to one. There is a whole art to saying things for the sake of saying them, and all involved know one doesn't mean them and isn't even supposed to mean them. And it's taboo to point this out.

A common example is to always answer "Fine, thank you" when someone asks you "How are you?" Because that "How are you?" is not actually a question. It's a cue sentence, meant to show that the person saying it is playing by the rules, and testing the other person whether they do so too, a test they pass if they reply "Fine, thank you".

My contention is that this phenomenon goes far further than that, that it extends to many ideological claims.