Is there a New Secular Quasi-Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately "Religious" or Ideologically Tribal?

[huckelberry]

I actually personally support most social justice ideals, but I will readily to admit that it is completely grounded in the metaphysics of Christian ethics, which was best pointed out to me by Tom Holland in his book Dominion, and by listening to his many debates and discussions on Youtube.

So that's where this whole "I'm an atheist who believes in Christian ethics" thing comes from. After I watched one of your links, perhaps YouTube's algorithm knew what to send me because shortly thereafter, I watched one of the many entertaining clips with a rational liberal interviewing unhinged right-wingers at a Trump rally. And sure enough, there was a young MAGA guy talking calmly about how he is an atheist, but admits modern life as we know it is fundamentally Christian.

I remember learning of this book some time ago, actually, and it could be worth reading. My impression is that it's a book worth reading. However, I can assure you that "social justice" isn't "completely grounded in the metaphysics of Christian ethics". You may be thinking of metaethics, and there really isn't a whole lot to Christian metaethics aside from Divine Command Theory, which every single Christian at Trump rallies believes in. What Holland attempts to show is that the Christian theme of sympathy for the weak -- A twist on a Nietzschean theme itself -- culturally transmits to modern times and becomes social justice. It's an ambitious claim in its own right, but unless you can show me the passage from the book that says otherwise, it's not claiming that modern ideas of justice are metaphysically Christian. If he does claim that, I'd love to see how he argues for it because it sounds ridiculous to me. ..................

I think Gadiantons point that it is unlikely for Christianity to be sole source of modern ethics to be pretty straightforward. For those like myself who are unfamiliar with Mr Hollands book I checked wikapedia and found this :

Holland has previously written several historical studies on Rome, Greece, Persia and Islam, including Rubicon, Persian Fire, and In the Shadow of the Sword.[9] According to Holland, over the course of writing about the "apex predators" of the ancient world, particularly the Romans, "I came to feel they were increasingly alien, increasingly frightening to me".[10] "The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more."[1] This led him to investigate the process of change leading to today, concluding "in almost every way, what makes us distinctive today reflects the influence over two thousand years of the Christian story".[10]
In Holland's view, pre-Christian societies and deities, such as in the Greco-Roman world, tended to focus on and glorify strength, might and power; this was inverted with the spread of Christianity, which proclaimed the primacy of the weak and suffering.[13] Humanism, instead of springing from ancient Greek philosophy or Enlightenment thinking, "derives ultimately from claims made in the Bible: that humans are made in God's image; that his Son died equally for everyone; that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female."[4] The concept of human rights and equality, as well as solidarity with the weak against the strong, Holland argues, ultimately derive from the theology built on the teachings of Jesus and Paul the Apostle.[4]

The success of what he calls the "Christian revolution" in changing our sensibilities, Holland argues, is evident in how complete its central claims now are taken for granted by "believers, atheists and those who never paused so much as to think about religion".[14] Holland also argues that many of those who clearest recognized the "radical" implications of Christianity, and its departure from earlier morality, were those fundamentally opposed to it – including Friedrich Nietzsche, the Marquis de Sade and the Nazi Party.[4][14]

The article goes on to observe that correlation is not causation.That observation allows the possibility that a variety of developing social factors could have started and encouraged the views that Christianity presented.
I added to quote a piece I accidentally missed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_ ... land_book)

Gadianton, I do not find myself agreeing that divine command is the primary approach to ethics in the Bible or Christianity. It does exist of course. I found myself thinking that you might be pointing out something significant in seeing Trump supporters as inclinded to divine command thinking. (God supposedly oks Trumps lies)

[Free Ranger]

Let me try again, Free Ranger.

My starting point when it comes to categories is: no categories are real; some categories are useful.

The usefulness of a category depends heavily on whether we can determine, on a consistent basis, which things are inside the category and which are not.

Your argument involves labeling things as a religion simply because they are similar in some way to religion. But, unless you have a rigorous definition of religion, that simply revolves into an ad hoc game of parallels.

For example, is capitalism a religion because some people worship money? How about football, where fans are devoted to a team and attend meeting to worship them?

Drawings parallels is meaningless unless you start with a solid definition of what qualifies anything as a religion. Referring me to the meaning in old French really doesn’t cut it, because we’re not old French. The question is how you are defining religion for the purpose of the question you are asking.

And that’s before you make the first move in the argument you’ve laid out: The one from “religion” to “secular religion.”

Okay that's a fair point.

I guess what I was trying to get at is some people would define religion as only meaning that which involves a supernatural belief in deities or supernatural beings, as some dictionaries define religion as a "set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being" Source: https://www.verywellmind.com/religion-i ... al%20being.

But then what do we do with people who consider themselves religious but are atheist and attend a Unitarian Universalist church? They sing and do rituals and many say they get a lot of benefit from it, but they do not believe in any kind of supernatural force. They have no problem describing their beliefs and behaviors as religious, and to all lookers it is definitely a religion.

I already mentioned an atheist telling such a congregation once that even as an atheist he prays to the Universe. That is obviously a religious practice, which he does without any supernatural belief because for him as a former pastor he continues to derive psychological benefits. An exmormon atheist named Packham wrote:

"Can an atheist pray? Why not? I don't believe in God - at least not the God as described by the majority of theists - but I DO believe that there is plenty of evidence that we human beings can summon up powers to help us in difficult times. I don't venture to guess whether these powers are within us or outside us, but I don't think it matters what their source is, they are there. And we can benefit from them.

Those who believe in God summon up these powers by calling upon God in prayer. Those who do not believe in God use other methods - meditation, visualization, altered states of consciousness, whatever. They work for the believer, and because they sometimes work, the believer's faith is strengthened, because the prayers are answered. They work just as well for the non-believer.
I guess what I am saying is that one doesn't have to give up one's access to these powers just because one has given up belief in God. They are still there. I use them, all the time. Whereas I used to address a prayer: "Dear God, please..." I now simply place myself in a meditative state, relax, and put my feelings into words (sometimes only mentally) addressed to whoever or whatever may be listening. Even if it is only some part of my inner self, something happens to bring me peace, self-assurance, confidence. My fears are calmed, my sorrows are soothed, and I am reminded of my unassailable right to my tiny place in the universe, and that somehow everything will turn out all right in the end, or, if it doesn't, it won't really matter."

Source: http://packham.n4m.org/atheist2.htm

At the end, he offers a version of an atheist's prayer. Is Mr. Pacham religious? I would say yes to a certain degree.

So if I were pushed into a corner and I had to define the word religion I would say I define religion as the binding or linking together of a group of two or more people through shared beliefs and rituals that provide meaning and purpose. This binding and linking can include supernatural beliefs or naturalistic beliefs, which is why many argue that Ayn Rand formed a kind of religion or philosophical "cult." Obviously cults or a form of religion.

Is the Declaration of Independence a religious document? It invokes Nature's God which is a reference to the god of Deism, a Deity that endowed humans with inalienable Rights, implying they have a soul that can reason and make choices within the realm of free will (another supernatural claim according to many atheistic scientists). Our courts of law are based on a belief in supernatural free will and the supernatural belief in the soul and the ability to be judged on one's guilt or innocence and punished accordingly. The judge walks in with the black robe and people stand up in reverence. So is the whole court system a kind of religious system? Yes, it kind of is. Nietszche argued that the whole court system and prison itself is a religious supernatural enterprise. The concept of punishment he argued comes from religious thinking. See http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/6

Your questions about football are legitimate questions. So to answer your question, I would take all of these organizations and ideas and documents I mentioned above and say that they are all examples of religion in my mind.

Buddhists, I would say, are very religious especially the monastic Buddhist and yet they do not have a belief in a supernatural deity or angels like in Catholicism. They do not worship a deity as far as I know although they may revere the Buddha and seek Buddha consciousness. I could be wrong on that but I think most Buddhists are non-theist though there is definitely supernatural elements to the religion.

What do we do with Nietzche? Everyone thinks he was a cold hard atheist yet as I've pointed out he believed that the brain had two brain chambers, one for cold hard science and reason and the other for basically religion-making. Many argue that he wanted to reinvigorate a kind of pagan volk religiosity, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 00460_31.x and this book on Nietszche's Coming God https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-Comin ... 1907166904
What I see Nietszche doing is replacing God, scripture, and hymns and cathedrals with the Superhumans, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and music and art. His writings were basically religious epistles and he considered his Zarathustra a fifth gospel. His pagan secular religion was designed to to replace the Christian deity and the morality of Christianity with the amoral ethic of aristocratic rank order and the God of Dionysus as he writes in Ecce Homo, “Have I been understood?―Dionysus against the crucified one...” He tried to replace Christianity with a return to religious paganism with a kind of and holy book and a kind of fifth gospel; so that even though he was writing from a mostly naturalistic secular perspective, when you look at his unpublished notes, he often speaks about formulating a concept of "God" or the divine and having experiences that sound spiritual or religious to me. As he talks about a kind of pagan mysticism in his personal writings, especially when he describes feeling as if "inspired" in writing his Zarathustra. He used New Testament metaphors and language in Z to make his points, Knowing full well he was writing a form of religion. Because I think he knew that we are homoreligious, that is we have a religious side to ourselves. There are lots of books and articles describing Nietzsche's atheistic religion, Ghram Parkes calls it dionysian pantheism.

I consider Nazism a religion after watching a lot of documentaries on it. Religious beliefs and rituals can be supernatural or natural, theistic or even atheistic. For example, I believe there are political religions. Note how often people throw around the world word cult. One person's religion is another person's cult. When I was a true believing Brighamite Mormon I often found it odd that Mormonism was described as a cult by Evangelical Christians when in my mind they were just as cultish; and Christianity when it began was considered a cult by the other religions of the day.

Trumpers often consider wokeism a religious cult and woke people are likely to consider Trumpers members of a religious cult.

This is why I felt like I answered your question by referencing the links above because in those links they describe the ingredients and effects of "political religions" both on the Right and the Left, describing the elements of the extreme versions of both Trumpism and Wokeism. Hence, secular religion. In these secular political religions, there is no worship of a deity but instead reverence for a person or ideology that binds the group together through rituals like chanting a slogan or a phrase, think Trumpers chanting, "Lock her up, lock her," or the polotical Left and Right experiencing elevated emotions at a rally or watching one's favorite pundit bind and link you together with shared beliefs, which gives people a sense of existential meaning and purpose.

I think the word religion is especially justified in describing this be ause just as a monkish religious person will be celibate secular religions can motivate people to storm the capital in a religious frenzy. All because religions are powerful binders of a community together; and I have seen secular religions like Trumpism or Wokeism bind people together very tightly. No not all Trump suppprters or Woke advocates fall into the category of behaving religiously or in an extreme manner, but many do.

I have had conversations with people I have known my whole life who are on the political Right and the minute I say something or ask a question they don't like, they will say something like "you're not a Trumper are you?" in the same tone and concern that a devout Mormon would say "you're not becoming an apostate are you?"

This is also why I emphasize toxic versus non-toxic religions. There is a non-toxic version of Wokeism and Trumpism. I think someone could be woke and non-toxic and someone could be pro Trump and non-toxic. It all depends on how religiously zealous they are. Just as there are Christians who are non-toxic and really live their faith, by their fruits ye shall know them, and then there are Christians that are all lip service as Marcus Borg once put it, "you can believe all the right things and still be a jerk."

Being one of the few Republicans to oppose supporting Donald trump, my guess is that Liz Cheney probably thinks that she is confronting a religious Cult with Trumpism, and on the other end of the spectrum you have recently Anna Kasparian in thisminterview at around the 1 hour and 7 minute mark saying a that she believes that she was basically kind of caught up in a cult or it feels like it, and she describes her fears of leaving what she considers doctrinaire far-Leftism to more of a moderate or centrist position, with the same kind of fear and trepidation that a devout Mormon has when leaving the LDS church; as she's concerned with being a far-Leftist "apostate" and being "excommunicated" basically as if she were leaving a religion!
Again, I realized that not all versions of wokeism make people feel as she is describing, but at least some versions of it is definitely a form of secular religion, and the same could be said of Trumpism.

So in my opinion, we can quibble over exact definitions but it's kind of like, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If an ideology or a group functions like any other religion and makes people feel the way religions do then I would say it's probably worthy of the term religion. I would say that there is a extremely thin line between what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a secular "movement," or a club or a fraternity. I joined a fraternity in college, it had "creeds" and symbolism, and reverence for the Founders, and binding rituals, so to me it was a secular religion.

So yes I do think that the same levers that are being pulled in the human mind and nervous system in a supernaturalistic religion are the exact same levers being pulled in a political rally or among extreme sports fans, etc. Just because you take out a deity and a particular supernatural set of beliefs, does not change the physiological reactions and elevated emotion and binding affect that is occuring in all of these groups; and thus I think it's worthy of the name religion.

Everyday school children recite the pledge of allegiance which has the same reverent tones one hears in the LDS temple, or during the sacrament prayers in the Mormon church. Same thing can be said of the wave at a baseball game or the national anthem.

My point in all of this is that if you think that by rejecting any and all forms of religion you're going to be free from any religious inclinations or participation in any form of "religiousness," I think you're being naïve. It was this realization that allowed me to move from Spockish Atheism to a kind of religious humanism and reconstruct a spiritual or religious worldview on my own terms. Once I realized that we are all engaging in some form of religion-making, including atheists in one way or another most of the time, then I realized that why should I let the fundamentalist religious have all the fun and all the benefits, why not see if I could utilize the levers that they are pulling but in a way that I only get placebos and not nocebos, I only get elevated emotion and not scrupliosity, I only get existential meaning and vitality, not feelings of inadequacy from failing to live up to perfectionistic puritanical standards. Once I went down this road in reconstructing my lifestance, I began to indeed feel a lot of the same positive benefits I once felt as a true believer in a traditional religion, by exercising both of my brain chambers and allowing myself to hold different views in the idea space of my mind after being inspired by Possibilianism and the book Sum: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4948826-sum

[Marcus]

...Once I realized that we are all engaging in some form of religion-making, including atheists in one way or another most of the time...

No, we are all not.

[Res Ipsa]

...Once I realized that we are all engaging in some form of religion-making, including atheists in one way or another most of the time...

No, we are all not.

I come at it from the other way around, but I think I end up in the same place. To me, Free Ranger has made the category “religion” so broad as to be useless in this context. Lets do what you math wizards do: if religion is in every term of the equation, why not cancel it out and focus on what matters. I get to the same place as Free Ranger by saying “some things people do are beneficial and some are not. Let’s do the beneficial ones and not the rest.

[Free Ranger]

...Once I realized that we are all engaging in some form of religion-making, including atheists in one way or another most of the time...

No, we are all not.

By the eye roll I take it you took issue with my statement. To clarify what I meant by that statement, it was given in the context of several examples of what I consider "religion making" throughout this entire thread. For example:

> Do you believe that people have Free Will or are we causally Determimed by brain chemistry, genes, and the laws of physics?

If you reject Free Will am "I" actually responsible for causing you to roll your eyes? And are you determinally caused to react without freedom of will? Why roll your eyes if I can do no differently as a causal product of physics and chemistry? Are you not reacting as if I have Free Will and thus the social microagression of an eye roll?

> Are Buddhists technically "atheists" (i.e. non-theist/non-monotheists)? Are Buddhists religious?

> Do you believe a Defendant in criminal court can be judged as to their guilt or innocence by a man or woman in a black robe and punished as if they had Free Will to act differently? If so, why? Why do you disagree with Nietszche?

> Do you believe in our American Declaration that we have inalienable Rights, if so why do you disagree with Nietzsche's arguments on the subject?

> Do you believe you have a real Self, actual non-causal selfhood, as if you have a "soul" and you are a person, a real "I", or are you really just a kind of genetic robot, a gene machine, and you and your "self" are a construct of your brain, which is as much a construct of blind evolutionary forces as the digital construct of the non-person emoji in your response?

> Is there anything in your worldview or political opinions that does not completely fit into metaphysical naturalism, in other words are you constructing a political view or a morality on more emotion and is more based on the factors of your personality as Jonathan Haidt talks about? Can that construction be grounded only in the physical sciences?

> The Atheist David Hume argued that we can't even know with certainty that the sun is going to come up in the morning, so to a certain degree we are engaging in worldview constructs because we need to get through the day.

All of this is what I meant by "religion making," as I am using the term religion broadly yes. To be clear, so you don't feel like I'm trying to broadbrush all atheists as ultra religious, I don't mean all atheists are supernaturally religious as if all atheists are secretly lighting candles in a dark room chanting Hare Krishna lol , of course I know that not all atheists are that type of religious. I was indeed broadening the definition of religion to include participating in our court system and acting like we have free will and expecting others to behave as if they have will and making people accountable as if they have free will, while engaging in some kind of ritual (even as simple as Birthday rituals) and binding beliefs like we all have inalianable Rights, whether we are atheist or not. Perhaps that's an inaccurate assessment, but it's just how I see it and I guess we can agree to disagree civilly, if not "religiously" .

[Marcus]

No, we are all not.

By the eye roll I take it you took issue with my statement. To clarify what I meant by that statement, it was given in the context of several examples of what I consider "religion making" throughout this entire thread. For example...

I don't agree with the ways you are using variations on the term "religion."

The definition of religion is pretty straightforward:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods"

Calling so many human responses "religion" or "religion-making," regardless of how you broaden it, still has that underlying aspect of belief in a god. One could just as easily say all these responses are encompassed in witchcraft-making, or sportsfan-obsessing, or are determined by whether one is a cat person or dog person. It's a word that has meaning, and if that meaning is not intended, why use it?

I also object to the rhetorical device of saying "we are all" in some way doing the same thing when one is expressing what they believe about how they do a thing, but that's a minor issue compared to the use of the word "religion." Broadening the meaning to the extent of losing its meaning still leaves one using a word that invokes meaning, including the implications of that meaning. Why use it at all, when such baggage is invariably included?

[Free Ranger]

By the eye roll I take it you took issue with my statement. To clarify what I meant by that statement, it was given in the context of several examples of what I consider "religion making" throughout this entire thread. For example...

I don't agree with the ways you are using variations on the term "religion."

The definition of religion is pretty straightforward:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods"

Calling so many human responses "religion" or "religion-making," regardless of how you broaden it, still has that underlying aspect of belief in a god. One could just as easily say all these responses are encompassed in witchcraft-making, or sportsfan-obsessing, or are determined by whether one is a cat person or dog person. It's a word that has meaning, and if that meaning is not intended, why use it?

I also object to the rhetorical device of saying "we are all" in some way doing the same thing when one is expressing what they believe about how they do a thing, but that's a minor issue compared to the use of the word "religion." Broadening the meaning to the extent of losing its meaning still leaves one using a word that invokes meaning, including the implications of that meaning. Why use it at all, when such baggage is invariably included?

Would the definition you gave of a religion include non-theist Buddhists, who do not worship a superhuman power or powers, especially God? If not, what word should we use to describe Buddhists?

What about the other nontheistic religions? See: https://study.com/academy/lesson/polyth ... %20deities.

Here's a new question and I hope it is honestly answered by someone. I'm curious if you're equally against anthropologists and scientists who have used the label homoreligious to describe humanity?

And, isn't your line of objection similar to the political Rights' arguments, who are arguing against the changing of the meaning of words and definitions and pronouns as argued for by those on the political Left? Would not somebody on the political Rights say something like you said below:

"Broadening the meaning to the extent of losing its meaning still leaves one using a word that invokes meaning, including the implications of that meaning. Why use it at all, when such baggage is invariably included?"

That paragraph of yours' sounds a lot like the line of reasoning of the political Right, does it not?

Could you not also quibble over the term "gay," which has changed from the original dictionary definition over the years?

I think you would agree that everyone has different opinions and definitions of words, no? Is there not the connotative and the denotated meaning?

Do you disagree with the current changing of definitions of common words in just the last 5 years?

I still think my points stand. My questions and arguments, intended to invoke thought and conversation, have been ignored. Thus, I have not been able to change my mind with a good counter argument. Instead we seem to be quibbling over definitions of words like the political Right does.

Buddhists are nontheist and religious, atheists attending a Unitarian Universalist Church are religious, my college fraternity was definitely a religious phenomenon. My unanswered questions left unengaged still retain their implications. I'm guessing you believe in some form of supernatural free will or at least you are certainly acting like it in our conversations by holding me accountable for my use of words.

But okay, after pushing back a little, I hope you don't mind, respectfully. Switching gears, I do agree that my use of the word religion can be confusing and easily misunderstood. Fair point. Yet my reason for using the term religion was to point out that there is more than one version of atheism, that there's for example secular humanism and religious humanism. Is everyone okay with the term religious humanism?

So for those who are interested in that option of religious humanism, I assume you're okay with that term, spockish atheism or Brights (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement) need not be the only True Way.

I could just as easily swap the word religious with spiritual, but every time I use a word people seem to nitpick it and not like it. I used the word metaphysical earlier in this thread and my arguments were ignored and I was told I mean "metaethics."

I think we can nitpick all day long but I think there is sidestepping the underlying message I am giving, which is that a lot of the sciences and laboratory experiments are definitely showing that there are some benefits to non-toxic beliefs and rituals. I first became aware of all this after reading An Atheist Defends Religion https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/580 ... s-religion The author of that book said that when he published his book a fellow atheist refused to be his friend anymore. So perhaps I should be careful with the word religion. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and be some kind of friends Marcus. At least that is my hope.

I do agree with you that the word religion carries baggage, but what other word should I use? Is the term homoreligious okay? What word conveys what I see as the practice of supernatural ideas and ritual all around me, even by atheists who act as if people have free will and inalienable Rights and have strong political beliefs that are just as strong if not stronger than the supernaturally religious. What word would describe that phenomenon as accurately, if not religion or religious? What better word to describe Trump fans wearing red hats akin to LDS garments and chanting at a rally and believing in clearly unprovable ideas like the election was stolen? I'm asking genuinely, what is a better term to use and I will honestly consider using it.

You make a fair point though and my intention and motivation is not to antagonize agnostics and atheists. I was, like I have said an atheist myself, still am most days despite my existential experiment, and I used to bristle myself with the idea that I really am religious in some way; that was until I simply changed my mind on the matter. So now I'm simply willing to change my mind again, which is why I'm presenting these not just rhetorical questions but open invitations for discussion and civil argumentation so that I can possibly change my mind.

Thinking about it, yes I think I would be annoyed too as I was an atheist for many years. So again, give me a better term to use than religion? And again, is homoreligious okay?

My thesis, if you will, is simple: I think if we are in fact homoreligious, and tons of evidence from the sciences, including anthropology and neuroscience seems to say so, and their is utility in practicing quasi religious-like beliefs and practices (as we are innately prone to supra-natural thinking), then is it not wise to experiment with the the psychological benefits of some kind of supra-natural worldview or ritual (i.e. "religion-making" or mythos if you prefer) for existential meaning and improved well-being?

[Gadianton]

The definition Marcus gave said "especially" gods, it did not say exclusively gods. Buddhists believe in karma, reincarnation and therefore, some kind of immortal soul. This is clearly in the realm of religion. Confucianism is an example of an ancient philosophy that is often argued NOT to be a religion. In the world religion class I took back in the day, Confucianism was offered as contrasting with religious contemporaries as merely a moral philosophy.

As Marcus pointed out, and I think Res also, you're pushing the degree which words can mean anything at all.

I think there is some value in pointing out that atheists can be dogmatic, or poor researchers, or believe claims without evidence, pass on memes, and it's possible to do some really silly things that religious people do and are hypocrites about it, but the search to make atheism a "religion" is 100% a rhetorical strategy for bantering with people online, to tell them they are the very thing they claim to be against, and 0% a helpful exercise in the taxonomy of human ideas.

If you do ever take a world religion class, and Confucianism is brought up as an example of a moral philosophy that contrasts with Buddhism or Taoism, you should raise your hand and say, "but teacher, David Hume said we can't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, wasn't that also true for Confucianists? If so, then aren't they just as religious as Buddhists?"

Hopefully, you can see how absurd this is getting.

Also, if you don't like me telling you that you're talking about metaethics, please clarify what you meant. Its very hard to figure out what you mean sometimes and although you link frequently to outside material, it rarely helps shed light on what you're talking about as often times your sources are not agreeing with what you're saying. You seemed to ignore it when I finally did watch your videos and pointed out that 2 of the three contradicted you, not backed you up.

[Marcus]

I don't agree with the ways you are using variations on the term "religion."

The definition of religion is pretty straightforward:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods"

Calling so many human responses "religion" or "religion-making," regardless of how you broaden it, still has that underlying aspect of belief in a god. One could just as easily say all these responses are encompassed in witchcraft-making, or sportsfan-obsessing, or are determined by whether one is a cat person or dog person. It's a word that has meaning, and if that meaning is not intended, why use it?

I also object to the rhetorical device of saying "we are all" in some way doing the same thing when one is expressing what they believe about how they do a thing, but that's a minor issue compared to the use of the word "religion." Broadening the meaning to the extent of losing its meaning still leaves one using a word that invokes meaning, including the implications of that meaning. Why use it at all, when such baggage is invariably included?

Would the definition you gave of a religion include non-theist Buddhists, who do not worship a superhuman power or powers, especially God? If not, what word should we use to describe Buddhists?

What about the other nontheistic religions? See: https://study.com/academy/lesson/polyth ... %20deities.

Gad covered that quite well and i don't disagree with him.

Here's a new question and I hope it is honestly answered by someone. I'm curious if you're equally against anthropologists and scientists who have used the label homoreligious to describe humanity?

my objection to the use of variations on religion remains the same.

And, isn't your line of objection similar to the political Rights' arguments, who are arguing against the changing of the meaning of words and definitions and pronouns as argued for by those on the political Left? Would not somebody on the political Rights say something like you said below:

"Broadening the meaning to the extent of losing its meaning still leaves one using a word that invokes meaning, including the implications of that meaning. Why use it at all, when such baggage is invariably included?"

That paragraph of yours' sounds a lot like the line of reasoning of the political Right, does it not?

i have no idea. i gave you my reasoning.

Could you not also quibble over the term "gay," which has changed from the original dictionary definition over the years?

I think you would agree that everyone has different opinions and definitions of words, no? Is there not the connotative and the denotated meaning?

Do you disagree with the current changing of definitions of common words in just the last 5 years?

I still think my points stand. My questions and arguments, intended to invoke thought and conversation, have been ignored. Thus, I have not been able to change my mind with a good counter argument. Instead we seem to be quibbling over definitions of words like the political Right does.

this isn't really a response to my points regarding my objection to the use of 'religion' in various contexts.

I'm guessing you believe in some form of supernatural free will or at least you are certainly acting like it in our conversations by holding me accountable for my use of words.

what??!!!!

But okay, after pushing back a little, I hope you don't mind, respectfully. Switching gears, I do agree that my use of the word religion can be confusing and easily misunderstood. Fair point. Yet my reason for using the term religion was to point out that there is more than one version of atheism, that there's for example secular humanism and religious humanism. Is everyone okay with the term religious humanism?

no. For the same reasons i explained before.

So for those who are interested in that option of religious humanism, I assume you're okay with that term, spockish atheism or Brights (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement) need not be the only True Way.

Again, what???!!!!

I could just as easily swap the word religious with spiritual, but every time I use a word people seem to nitpick it and not like it. I used the word metaphysical earlier in this thread and my arguments were ignored and I was told I mean "metaethics."

I think we can nitpick all day long but I think there is sidestepping the underlying message I am giving, which is that a lot of the sciences and laboratory experiments are definitely showing that there are some benefits to non-toxic beliefs and rituals.

Ok. exploring benefits to basing actions on non-toxic beliefs and rituals sounds great. we can also add exploring benefits to basing actions on non-toxic facts and conventionally gained knowledge.

...So perhaps I should be careful with the word religion. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and be some kind of friends Marcus. At least that is my hope.

why would disagreeing about ideas in a conversation online have any bearing on whether people can be friends? Simply by definition, no two people will ever agree on everything. agreeing to disagree is the lifeblood of academic relationships. i would expect nothing different here!

I do agree with you that the word religion carries baggage, but what other word should I use? Is the term homoreligious okay? What word conveys what I see as the practice of supernatural ideas and ritual all around me, even by atheists who act as if people have free will and inalienable Rights and have strong political beliefs that are just as strong if not stronger than the supernaturally religious. What word would describe that phenomenon as accurately, if not religion or religious? What better word to describe Trump fans wearing red hats akin to LDS garments and chanting at a rally and believing in clearly unprovable ideas like the election was stolen? I'm asking genuinely, what is a better term to use and I will honestly consider using it.

what you see is not what everyone else sees. Since you are asking, my suggestion is to describe what you see, without using a term (religion and its variants) that has a meaning that does not universally apply.

My thesis, if you will, is simple: I think if we are in fact homoreligious, and tons of evidence from the sciences, including anthropology and neuroscience seems to say so, and their is utility in practicing quasi religious-like beliefs and practices (as we are innately prone to supra-natural thinking), then is it not wise to experiment with the the psychological benefits of some kind of supra-natural worldview or ritual (i.e. "religion-making" or mythos if you prefer) for existential meaning and improved well-being?

and i disagree that humankind can be adequately defined as homoreligious. any experiment that assumes that, and then experiments with "some kind of supra-natural worldview or ritual (i.e. 'religion-making'..." is starting by assuming one of your conclusions, and therefore doesn't constitute a valid experiment.

[Free Ranger]

The definition Marcus gave said "especially" gods, it did not say exclusively gods. Buddhists believe in karma, reincarnation and therefore, some kind of immortal soul. This is clearly in the realm of religion. Confucianism is an example of an ancient philosophy that is often argued NOT to be a religion. In the world religion class I took back in the day, Confucianism was offered as contrasting with religious contemporaries as merely a moral philosophy.

As Marcus pointed out, and I think Res also, you're pushing the degree which words can mean anything at all.

I think there is some value in pointing out that atheists can be dogmatic, or poor researchers, or believe claims without evidence, pass on memes, and it's possible to do some really silly things that religious people do and are hypocrites about it, but the search to make atheism a "religion" is 100% a rhetorical strategy for bantering with people online, to tell them they are the very thing they claim to be against, and 0% a helpful exercise in the taxonomy of human ideas.

If you do ever take a world religion class, and Confucianism is brought up as an example of a moral philosophy that contrasts with Buddhism or Taoism, you should raise your hand and say, "but teacher, David Hume said we can't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, wasn't that also true for Confucianists? If so, then aren't they just as religious as Buddhists?"

Hopefully, you can see how absurd this is getting.

Also, if you don't like me telling you that you're talking about metaethics, please clarify what you meant. Its very hard to figure out what you mean sometimes and although you link frequently to outside material, it rarely helps shed light on what you're talking about as often times your sources are not agreeing with what you're saying. You seemed to ignore it when I finally did watch your videos and pointed out that 2 of the three contradicted you, not backed you up.

That is not a good faith communication nor respectful response Gadianton. You also put words in my mouth. Please show me exactly where I ever said I was trying to "make atheism a 'religion'"?

Your comment below is rude and condescending, when you said:

"If you do ever take a world religion class, and Confucianism is brought up as an example of a moral philosophy that contrasts with Buddhism or Taoism, you should raise your hand and say, 'but teacher, David Hume said we can't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, wasn't that also true for Confucianists? If so, then aren't they just as religious as Buddhists?"

RULES FOR THE CELESTIAL FORUM …:

Keep all communications "Rated G."
No personal attacks allowed whatsoever.
No disrespectful communications allowed.
Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.

You are engaging in disrespectful communications Gadianton. Please stop focusing on me as a person rather than the ideas.

I am sorry you say you can't "figure out what I mean sometimes," my guess is that many people who might lurk on here will understand me clearly. And they will understand you clearly. We can let the audience decide without being rude and condescending to each other, no? Please stop avoiding engaging in the ideas and personally insulting me instead.
What do you mean by bantering online? What do you call two philosophers in a philosophical setting exchanging ideas and engaging in Socratic dialogue or even a heated argument that does not involve rude snarky comments or condescending disrespect? Just two adults making good arguments back-and-forth? Attempting to change each other's mind with good arguments and evidence? Is that bantering, as you put it? No it's not.

Gadianton, remember Rule 4: "Do not 'derail' threads or otherwise insert commentary that has nothing to do with a thread's opening post." I believe you are derailing the thread by personally attacking me with your underhanded insulting sarcasm and rudeness rather than engaging the ideas. This is unjustified given my politeness and is disrespectful to the celestial board and those who do want to communicate in good faith on the celestial board where the rules are "no personal attacks allowed whatsoever. No disrespectful communications allowed" Please do not derail the thread further and focus on the topic, which I started which is the following in summation:

> Many anthropologists and scientists have used the label homoreligious to describe humanity, is that accurate? If not why not? Are we innately prone to religion or myth-making as pattern seeking creatures, etc., and thus justifiably called homoreligious?

> Is religious humanism "religious" if the humanist is an atheist as most humanists are? Why do some humanists benefit from being religious despite not being literal believers?

> Is the Declaration of Independence a religious document? It invokes Nature's God which is a reference to the God of Deism, a Deity that endowed humans with inalienable Rights, implying they have a soul that can reason and make choices within the realm of free will (another supernatural claim according to many atheist scientists). Our courts of law are based on a belief in supernatural free will and the supernatural belief in the soul and the ability to be judged on one's guilt or innocence and punished accordingly. The judge walks in with the black robe and people stand up in reverence. So is the whole court system a kind of religious system?

> Is the Defendant in criminal court rightly judged as to their guilt or innocence by a man or woman in a black robe and punished as if they had Free Will to act differently? If so, why? Why do most of us disagree with Nietszche, especially if like Nietszche, you do not believe in free will or the concept of being endowed by an external Power with inalienable Rights? Are these not religious-like assertions?

> Do we believe we have a real Self, and actual free will and selfhood, as if we have a "soul" and we are a person, a real "I", or are we really just a kind of genetic robot, a gene machine, and our "self" is a construct of our brain which is as much a construct of blind evolutionary forces? See the work of Stephen Pinker on this subject on how our brains construct the illusion of selfhood.

> Is there anything in our worldview or political opinions that does not completely fit into metaphysical naturalism, in other words are we constructing a political view or a morality on more emotion and is more based on the factors of our personality as Jonathan Haidt talks about? Can that construction be grounded only in the physical sciences?

> Many atheists think there are politically motivated "secular religions" popping up to fill the existential Void caused by former versions of atheism in the early 2000s (see links in OP). Does the fact that many people on the political Left and Right treat their political ideology very similar to those who are supernaturally religious, in any way lend support for the view that we are homoreligious?

> If religion is possibly or likely a spandrel and the atheists in the videos I linked to here viewtopic.php?t=157779 argue non-toxic religion or spiritual practices can be beneficial to one's health, then is it not at least possible that non-toxic spiritual beliefs and religious ideas and practices are potentially innate to our species and thus is it possible that religious humanism could be good for some person's mental health and for social cohesion?

> Put simply, as the very title of the topic of this thread itself puts it: Is their a New Secular Religion [via some Political Movements acting like Religions nowadays], If So Does It Support We Are Innately Religious?