Atheists, is there anything religious that sticks with you to this day?

I am Ganesh, an Indian atheist and I don’t eat beef. It’s not like that I have a religious reason to do that, but after all those years seeing cows as peaceful animals and playing and growing up with them in a village, I doubt if I ever will be able to eat beef. I wasn’t raised very religious, I didn’t go to temple everyday and read Gita every evening unlike most muslims who are somewhat serious about their religion, my family has this watered down religion (which has it’s advantages).

But yeah, not eating beef is a moral issue I deal with. I mean, I don’t care that I don’t eat beef, but the fact that I eat pork and chicken but not beef seems to me to be weird. So, is there any religious practice that you guys follow to this day?

edit: I like religious music, religious temples (Churches, Gurudwara’s, Temples & Mosques in Iran), religious paintings and art sometimes. I know for a fact that the only art you could produce is those days was indeed religious and the greatest artists needed to make something religious to be funded, that we will never know what those artists would have produced in the absence of religion, but yeah, religious art is good nonetheless.

ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling,

I was a Satanist for a bit. I still use Magick to think about leadership and social manipulation. Its pretty useful for me, and it’s also funny as hell to think of a boardroom meeting as a ritual circle around an altar of PowerPoint.

barsoap,

The High Priests of the Egregore! The High Priests of the Egregore!

RaspberryRobot,

Personally, I was raised muslim, but now I don’t eat pork (or meat in general) for ethical/environmental reasons rather than religious.

WetBeardHairs,

I have had some seriously bizarre cases of deja vu. Like, recalling dreams I had years before that exactly predicted a place I would be in in the future. It has happened five or six times. It does make me question things such as consciousness and my place in the universe. It also makes me wonder if my brain is broken.

doom_and_gloom,

I have this too - I assume it’s a brain quirk.

That or time is an illusion. One or the other.

WetBeardHairs,

Yeah, I think there are mundane answers to this. But “mundane” in this case could include cosmological factors like the universe is a weird temporal foam of timeywimey stuff.

cjsolx,

I’ve heard two theories for this that I think are plausible:

  • A feeling of familiarity even though this is a brand new situation. Your brain is always trying to determine the best course of action from experiences where you’ve encountered that problem before. Sometimes we have a false positive where the situation is so similar you “remember it”, but it’s obviously slightly different and new.
  • Essentially a memory read/write error. Your brain is recollecting as it’s consolidating the memory causing wonkiness (technical term) in your experience. You think you remember, but what you’re remembering is actually the present experience.
doom_and_gloom,

I think deja vu is believed to be due to the second bullet point.

It’s just that sometimes - maybe once in a dozen - it is subjectively very weird, and you just have to leave that little “ya but what if” in the corner of your mind with the other unlikely cosmological possibilities.

barsoap,

You think you remember, but what you’re remembering is actually the present experience.

Or you do remember, it’s just very very very recent. The present moment is rather funky when it comes to perception (it’s not an instant but more of a sliding window in time) and it’s reasonable that things can feel like remembering precisely when you see something because whatever lag there is in “write to memory, read from memory” still fits into that sliding window.

purahna,
@purahna@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, never set foot in a church before 18 besides weddings. Still am, never doubted it. Maybe I believe in like Spinoza’s god or something but definitely no Abrahamic God.

Something I’ve learned is that among many other things, a certain holy quality to persecution has definitely permeated the western consciousness and it 100% has me second guessing myself often. The christliness of being persecuted, made a martyr, and suffering for your cause carries a moral quality that I have absolutely not freed myself from, even though there’s nothing automatically morally good or bad in suffering and being made a victim for fighting for a cause.

Blake,

The basis of that isn’t Christianity, it is morality that existed before Christianity which Christianity adopted. Nietzsche referred to it as “slave morality” - the idea is that by redefining the behaviours of subjugated people as virtuous rather than compelled, it gives them power and agency

purahna,
@purahna@lemmygrad.ml avatar

You might be right, but regardless of the origin, the belief was popularized in the West because of Christianity. Unless you’re suggesting that Nietzsche is merely pointing out an intrinsic feature of all human morality, but I don’t know his work well enough to decide either way on that.

Blake,

It’s a bit like saying that Easter is a Christian holiday, when everyone knows it’s a rebranded general fertility-themed holiday. Christianity didn’t really popularise the morality, they just made it about them.

Saeculum,

There are plenty of virtues that are generally seen as good outside of religious sentiment associated with suffering for a cause. Tenacity is usually an appealing quality.

5714,

Sometimes I listen to Gregorian chants.

About cows - there was a YTer who sucessfully connected atheism to veganism (but then didn’t). I think veganism and atheism have a lot in common structurally.

doom_and_gloom,

Agreed - they both tend to involve a non-dualist but still practically materialist framework for their ethics. They look at the environment as it is, weight priorities based on observations, and heuristically minimize purely rhetorical evidence regardless of how much they may or may not dive into philosophy.

5714,

Would you mind translating that into laypeople’s language?

doom_and_gloom, (edited )

Sorry… atheism is somewhat non-dualist because it doesn’t typically deal with non-observable phenomena (it is physicalist in that sense), and it lends itself to materialist (the current state of things as they appear to matter to cause-and-effect) viewpoints. Veganism is non-dualist because it does not elevate the human or the human consciousness, it sees consciousness in a more materialist sense than many religious thinkers - vegans see no reason to differentiate conscious experiences among species, because we humans observe other species reacting to phenomena just as we consciously would. It would take an additional variable, one that has not been observed, to indicate that there is any material difference between experiences among conscious species. Both tend to operate on the assumption that consciousness is emergent and that conscious individuals are not truly separate from each other and their environments.

You may see atheists and vegans dive into philosophy, but atheists and vegans give little weight to arguments that aren’t linked to observable phenomena - as opposed to religious individuals who view things with a lens of faith. So rhetoric doesn’t really have much bearing on their worldview. Instead they have a tendency to fundamentally view the world around them as series of cause-and-effect that can be observed and quantified.

edit: fixed some typos now that i’m less rushed

FooBarrington,

In a way, I try to live my life so that if some kind of higher power existed, they’d think I am a good person. Not as a gambit to get into heaven or whatever, I don’t believe in that. But trying to imagine an objective arbiter of morality makes it easier to take myself out of the equation, which means I’m more likely to treat others as I want to be treated.

illectrility,

I use biology. Being grateful and kind just has an evolutionary advantage

FooBarrington,

It does, but the question is: how can we be grateful and kind in the right way? Being grateful and kind to a robber stealing things from your neighbours house is most likely wrong. Being grateful and kind to a single mother stealing food for her child is most likely right. Trying to see things from an objective point of view is a good way for me to do the right things in the right way.

TheWoozy,

Approaching kindness or generosity from a biological point of view seems (to me) to lead to The Prisoners’ Dilemma. Everyone is better off if we are all generous, but if I can’t trust others to be generous, I’m better off being selfish.

IMHO, religion is an evolutionary adaptation to “solve” this problem. It might have worked in small communities, but not in our global society.

I’m rambling…

SwingingTheLamp,

It sounds like you might really enjoy an episode of Radiolab, The Good Show, on this very topic, the evolution of altruism. Indeed, digging into it leads them to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. One of the segments covers a competition organized by a computer scientist around an iterative cooperate/defect game. Entrants tried to come up with an algorithm that would maximize the benefit to the ‘player’ in repeated rounds against the computer. I won’t spoil it by revealing which algorithm won, but I’ll say it’s really fascinating.

TheActualDevil,

I think it’s really more of a sociology thing. Like, it’s pretty well accepted that our natural inclination towards fairness is not from a biological drive, but because we would want to be treated that way. The best way of ensuring that is creating a society where that is the norm. Mankind decided that killing others is wrong because we don’t want to get killed ourselves. If we think stealing from others is fine, we have no redress if someone steals from us.

When I was young, I noticed that the some of the Hammurabic Codes shared a lot in common with Christian teachings. I brought this up to my dad and he said “Yeah, where do you think Hammurabi got the idea?” Now, obviously, he’s got his timeline confused, and even as a small child I could do that math and knew the royal edicts pre-dated the 10 commandments and are of a completely non-religious nature. Groups living together need fairness to prosper.

Evolution, however, tends to lean more towards the strongest surviving. Evolutionarily, we need our genes passed on. Sure, we might manage to procreate before we die, but then we’re not around to protect that lineage. Lions are a good example of that problem. If a rival male takes over your pride after killing you, they will also kill all the cubs. Presumably so only their genes are the ones moving on. That is the evolutionary drive. Wolves, however, are much more social creatures. They function as a group that doesn’t necessarily need to be related and they make decisions similar to how we would expect our own group behaviors. If one of the pack is hurt, they don’t leave it behind to die, they protect it and even leave them behind with the pups to heal when they go out on hunts. But this only extends to their pack. Anything outside the pack does not get that consideration. It’s only in groups where being grateful and kind is an advantage.

Sociology is still a science though! A very good reason to follow those precepts.

Oh man, and that other poster thought they were rambling… I get real wordy when the Adderall kicks in first thing in the morning.

illectrility,

I don’t agree completely. Using lions as a comparison doesn’t really work imo since their behavioural patterns differ greatly from ours.

Gratitude always served as the foundation of our communities. It’s what motivates us to look out and care for one another and work as a group. Humans are herd animals so it has an evolutionary advantage to be kind to people. Being excluded from a community (which is the most common response to dicks) usually meant dying.

For people who didn’t suffer that fate, it kind of went something like this: Your parents and other community members take care of you as a child (instinctively). You notice that and feel gratitude, motivating you to return the favor by doing something for other members of your community. They feel grateful as a response and also want to return the favor. Ideally, this loop continues.

It used to work way better, the Neolithic Revolution really fucked things up but it still works.

TheActualDevil,

You make a lot of assumptions there though, don’t you? You’re assuming that you would be motivated to “return the favor,” but where does that motivation come from? Humans reciprocal acts are learned traits. There’s nothing they get in return for that act alone. The return only comes from the potential impact on the community, which is a social function, not biological.

I used lions as a contrast specifically because they’re behavior is different. They are baser creatures who’s community does come directly from biology and it’s drastically different. I also also gave canines as an example because they are specifically social animals and those behaviors that are similar to ours are derived from the social aspect, not biological since it’s community specific, not species.

Sociology studies how humans behave as groups in relation to each other. It’s specifically about the things you’re describing. Evolution drives us to pass our genes on. That’s it. What you’re saying can be just as easily used to trace literally everything humans do back to evolution. The argument could just as easily be made that religion is a result of evolution. Humans are curious because looking for answers gave us a cognitive advantage over competition. That trait leads us to searching for answers. If none are available, we find one. And now we have gods. But religion is organized and requires groups, which brings us back to sociology again.

illectrility,

I’m sorry for misunderstanding the thing with the lions. Thank you for helping me understand it, it makes much more sense now.

As I said, living in groups is desirable to humans on a very basic level. It’s what makes us survive and allows us to pass along our genes which is why staying in groups gives humans an evolutionary advantage.

I also said that what I described is how it used to work most of the time until the Neolithic Revolution happened. This enormous change also changed the way humans interact and behave. Stuff like greed and jealousy became much more common.

Despite that it is still baked into human biology that kindness and gratitude are advantageous to us. It explains the positive emotions that emerge when being kind and grateful.

I am also not doubting what you’re saying about sociology because how could I? It’s not wrong.

I think that our opinions don’t differ that greatly. The only point I am making is that behaving in a social manner is indeed evolutionary advantageous because it undeniably is.

species that form groups through social interaction will result in a group of individuals that gain an evolutionary advantage, such as increased protection against predators, access to potential mates, increased foraging efficiency and the access to social information.

Is what Wikipedia says about group living.

You’re assuming that you would be motivated to “return the favor,” but where does that motivation come from?

It would come from gratitude. Being grateful is simply a tool that emerged to motivate animals, including humans, to live in groups. The behaviour I mentioned earlier can also be seen in chimps and other primates, whose behavioral patterns are pretty similar to ours.

TL;DR

Living in groups does have evolutionary advantages thus staying part of one’s group is desirable which makes social behavior necessary. However, the Neolithic Revolution messed with human behavior and today’s society being much larger than human groups used to be thousands of years ago complicates things further. Gratefulness is simply a tool that emerged in many species, including humans, to further the goal of staying part of the group. It is still baked into human biology although not as much as it used to be.

BaconIsAVeg,

I refuse to believe that a being incalculable in power and knowledge, omnipotent, able to see both the past and the future, is somehow, according to what religious people want you to believe, burdened by what we humans experience as emotions or morality.

FooBarrington,

Why?

rockstarpirate,

I don’t know why your comment was downvoted when I got to it. It’s a perfectly valid question. To claim in incomprehensible being wouldn’t do any given thing is just as objectively baseless as claiming that they would do that thing.

BaconIsAVeg,

How a being of inordinate power and knowledge even exists would ‘feel’ or ‘think’ is indeed incomprehensible to us. It’s hubris to believe an entity with the power to create a universe could look down, at a single point in time, at a single place in the universe, and think “I’m really angry that creature masturbated” or “That woman showed her face in public, well she’s dead to me now”.

And that’s exactly what religion wants us to believe. That we’re somehow special in the universe, and there’s some grand entity that watches over every single little thing we do throughout the blip of our lives in the eternity of the cosmos. It’s honestly fucking bonkers.

FooBarrington,

How a being of inordinate power and knowledge even exists would ‘feel’ or ‘think’ is indeed incomprehensible to us.

How do you know?

It’s hubris to believe an entity with the power to create a universe could look down, at a single point in time, at a single place in the universe, and think “I’m really angry that creature masturbated” or “That woman showed her face in public, well she’s dead to me now”.

Sure, but does that mean the same being can’t judge A as better than B? That it can’t for example see one person pushing over old people, and another person helping them back up, and say “the person helping them back up is morally better than the person pushing them over”?

Beelzebro,

I think the concept of such an entity being incomprehensible is baked into the idea of religion, or at least Christianity, which is the only religion that I have any actual experience with.

How can you be so sure this entity doesn’t look at every individual and each of their actions and make a judgement on them? The concept of omnipotence and omniscience are themselves incomprehensible to us.

The idea that we don’t know God’s motives is part of why people follow blindly, despite the pain and joy of existence

streetfestival,

I think a grand being would definitely possess things like emotions or morality - some mechanisms of wisdom and good judgement. What I’ve always balked at is the idea that a grand being would have more ego-driven and self-serving human behaviours like jealousy, intolerance of people who are different, revenge, hatred, predudice, etc. Any idea of “God hates [fill in the blank]” has always been laughable to me. I think a grand being would definitely be morally superior to most humans

June,

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

  • Marcus Aurelius
electric_nan,

I like a lot of religious art (architecture, paintings, music…). Some of it is certainly the result of historical patronage, but plenty is the result of genuine religious inspiration and even ecstasy. I often think that art is the only real redeeming quality of religion!

ChaoticNeutralCzech,

I thought eating beef was taboo in India regardless of religion, as in – you could get away with it in private but good luck finding a butcher that would prepare one without ruining your reputation in the neighborhood. The taste is not good enough to risk it. However, (not) eating beef is an actual choice if you go abroad.

Metafalls_,

Ex-muslim here. I am not practicing most of its rituals other than zakat, as I feel like its one of those act that transcends any beliefs.

Akasazh,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

What is zakat?

Pea666,

Not OP and not a Muslim but it seems it’s a ‘commandment’ on charity to the poor.

Akasazh,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

Ty!

k110111,

Every year, out of all of your things that are not necessary like jewelery/saving or other non essential items, you are supposed to donate 2.5% of it, or equivalent in money, to a poor person.

Interestingly this would mean that a true muslim will probably never become a multi-billionaire.

ChaoticNeutralCzech,

If the amount is 2.5 %/yr of non-essentials, there is still lots of ways one could make money significantly faster with a good business strategy and lots of luck, and have a probability of eventually reaching a net worth in the billions. However, there’s a difference between following the letter of the “law” and its spirit.

elbowgrease,

Jews call that sadaka. it’s one of the ideas I remember fondly from my early years

Feddyteddy,

IMO, the rule that meat must be tayyib is the best part of the quran, and it’s the part that almost all Muslims know nothing about. They all know that meat must be halal, but they never know tayyib. Halal has even disintegrated into playing creepy prayers on repeat over a loudspeaker at the slaughterhouse or etching a payer into the side of the blades in the machine. Crazy how far from the original text selfishness and capitalistic greed can take people.

grean,

I read about it once and thought why couldn’t I give back at least as much, even without religious justification. Perhaps ironically in this context, part of the amount goes to my local atheist charity.

genuineparts,
@genuineparts@feddit.de avatar

Yes that my local, now long deceased Priest didn’t want my father to be buried at his graveyard, because he committed suicide and that is a sin. Made me a staunch atheist.

krayj,

I still celebrate Christmas - though in more of a yule way than anything resembling christianity. What I think of as the spirit of christmas is…friends/family getting together in winter and sharing what they have.

And, of course, my circumcision…still got that.

YoBuckStopsHere,
@YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

Christmas is very pagan.

Subject6051,

didn’t the christians get that from a pagan ritual or something? Even muslims are guilty of things like this, I would go on to talk about this if I had someone incharge of my security lol

bob_wiley,
@bob_wiley@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • anguo,

    I think it’s more that when the church couldn’t stop people from celebrating it, they decided to turn it into a Christian thing instead.

    Dressedlikeapenguin,

    Not the genital mutilation, though, that’s Jewish. I never understood why Christians do it. Didn’t Jesus fulfill the law and the prophets? Plus there was a spat over adults converting, but not getting circumcized that was settled on the side of “not required”. I may be remembering it wrong.

    rockSlayer,

    The religious reason for Christianity is actually more complex than a Jewish holdover. It stems from the belief that circumcision will disincentivize masturbation, which is considered a sin by the Catholic Church.

    Dressedlikeapenguin,

    Very on-brand. I’ll have to look it up.

    scv,

    Uh, what? Most Catholics aren’t circumcised, that’s an American thing.

    rockSlayer,

    Masturbation is the sin from the church. The American thing is to have babies circumcised to prevent masturbation

    Thisfox,

    It’s an American thing. Australians mostly see it as mutilation; It isn’t religion, it is yanks.

    Dressedlikeapenguin,

    Uh oh, my bias is showing again, lol.

    GarbageShoot,

    I’m an anti-theist and I still enjoy a lot of religious literature like Pilgrim’s Progress

    ivanafterall,
    @ivanafterall@kbin.social avatar
    Melatonin,

    Man, IF I could over play like that, I can’t imagine getting to the point where I could listen to a guy talking to me and interact with him, laughing and joking, while still playing.

    Talent.

    ivanafterall,
    @ivanafterall@kbin.social avatar

    Dude even laughs in key.

    SecretPancake,

    Still love me some good Gospel music.

    M68040,
    @M68040@hexbear.net avatar

    Some of the philosophy has stuck with me and I take a keen interest in the social and anthropological aspects of religion, but I’ve had such a consistently bad experience with American Christianity (particularly online) that I just can’t really trust anyone enough to even think about partaking in any of them anymore.

    I’d rather just improvise anyhow.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • [email protected]
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • oklahoma
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines