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.

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.

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.

TheControlled,

I enjoy blaspheming. (God dammit, Jesus fucking Christ, etc)

I try to pry it out of my lexicon but can’t do it, especially when I’m mad which of course is most likely when I blaspheme.

illectrility,

Totally agree! “God” just has that ring to it. I haven’t found a suitable replacement yet

DasRubberDuck,

Now that you say it, I think I do that too.

bpalmerau,

One of my favourites is “Christ on a bike!” because it’s so hilarious.

DoctorWhookah,

I use Christ on a cracker. No clue if I heard it somewhere or if it just came out of my mouth one day.

Feddyteddy,

“Jesus christ on a stick!”

Beelzebro,

I like “Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!”

Nahvi,

“Jesus H Christ” always made me smirk not sure why. Like Christ was his last name or something.

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
CannotSleep420,
@CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I haven’t believed in Catholicism for over 10 years and I still believe I deserve to be tortured so badly it’s beyond human comprehension for eternity.

Subject6051,

You left Catholicism, Catholicism didn’t leave you :")

aaaaaaadjsf,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

As an atheist that was raised as an evangelical Christian, probably using the Lord’s name in vain interestingly enough. Like going “thank God/Jesus” when something good happens, “oh God/lord” when shit hits the fan, and using Christ’s name as a swear word. I know it’s supposed to a sin in the Christian religion, but it’s the one thing I still do.

Outdoor_Catgirl,
@Outdoor_Catgirl@hexbear.net avatar

Same.

init, (edited )

Not to be that guy, but “using the Lord’s name in vain” has been misinterpreted and misapplied by Christianity as a whole for a very, very long time. “Using the Lord name in vain” is not saying “goddamit”, or “Jesus Christ, thats Jason Bourne”, but instead by saying you are Christian, or a follower of Christ’s teachings, and being indistinguishable from non-christians in the way one acts, speaks, thinks, dresses, etc,.

Does this mean that cursing as described above is bad? Maybe, and maybe not–it depends on your convictions.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. -Romans 14:5-6

Back when the Torah and minor prophets were written, taking someone’s name was to become their relative or kin. Even by the time Jesus came into the picture, it was still a common thing to take the name of a family to were adopted into, or to a land you moved to. Therefore, taking the Lord’s name in vain" should be more accurately described as calling oneself a Christian, and then not living as one. This is endemic in Christianity–our divorce rates are practically indistinguishable for secular society, premarital sex, cheating–not to mention, we have a huge problem with covering up pedophiles, spousal abuse, child abuse, the list goes on. I believe God knows this, and Jesus even spoke to it when he was on earth.

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 7:21

So, basically, I think God cares about the important stuff, like not acting like a hypocrite while labeling oneself one of his believers–not the inane stuff like saying “goddamnit”. But, if someone believes firmly that saying swearwords containing God’s name in it is also a sin, then by all means, that is treated and will be judged as a sin for that person.

And if we want to get technical, Lord, Jesus Christ, and God are not his names. Even names the Christian god is known by, such as El, El Shaddai, Yeshua, Messiah, Jah, Jahova, and possibly Yahweh (YHWH, but we don’t know for sure because Jewish scholars never recorded his name to prevent anyone from uttering it) are actually descriptors of who he is. El “The Lord”, El Shaddai “The Lord will cover”, Yeshua (actual name of Jesus, but not the name of God), Jah (first letter of the tetragrammaton “YHWH” ), Jahovah “The Lord will provide”. Technically, it is impossible to use the Lord’s name in vain if using his name in vain is defined as simply using it as a swear word or part of a curse because his name has been lost to history.

Sorry, that’s way more information than I intended.

EDIT: And I also want to make sure I make it abundantly clear that this is simply my interpretation of things, based upon my own experience growing up in a Baptist church, and seeing all the hypocrisy there and in my own parents lives (where both were abusive in their own ways). I’m not really what anyone would call a practicing Christian because I don’t attend church, tithe, or vote “prolife”. Organized religion in its current form, is in my opinion, a perversion of what God intended. But this is just my opinion.

ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling,

You just voiced all of my frustrations with so many Christians. I’m going to save this.

twice_twotimes,

This is a really cool take. I’ve never heard that interpretation of “taking the lord’s name” but I like it a lot. Do you know anywhere I can read more about that idea or the history of the phrase?

init,

The first time “taking the Lord’s name in vain” was written in the bible is Exodus 20:7, and is echoed again in Deuteronomy 5:11.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

The original Hebrew text and word used for the word “vain” in Exodus 20:7 is “Shav” according to Strong’s Concordance. This word specifically means:

shav; from the same as (related word) in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), lit. (ruin) or more. (espec. guile), fig. idolatry (as false, subj.) uselessness (as deceptive, obj.; also adv. in vain):–false (-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.

Strong’s Concordance - ISBN 0-7852-1195-0

As defined above, “using the Lords Name in vain” has more to do with lying, guile, idolatry (believing in a god other than than the “one true god”, which could be believing in a version of God inaccurate of who He is because you like your own version better), uselessness, and being false. I would very much define saying one identifying as Christian, yet not living and acting like one as the ultimate exercise in uselessness and hypocrisy.

The Strong’s Concordance has every word in the King James Version exhaustively identified with definitions of each. It is how theologians that aren’t actually fluent in Greek or Hebrew can break apart a verse to find the true meaning that has been lost to dialect, translation, and the time. If you’re interested, I would highly recommend finding one, or even downloading it.`

Here is a blog post that hits most of what I mentioned, and also has a few more things to consider.

One interesting thing of note is that, according to Leviticus 19:12, Christians are commanded to not bring shame upon their God by using him to swear falsely.

“Do not bring shame on the name of your God by using it to swear falsely. I am the LORD." -Leviticus 19:12

This implies that there are ways and times where it may actually be appropriate to use the Lord’s name, or your association to him as a Christian, to swear if something is true. However, Jesus recommends or commands in the New Testament that no one swear by anything, either by God or anything else, and to let only your “yes be yes, and your no be no” lest one brings judgement upon themselves.

"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” -Matthew 5:37

And here is one more final thing to think about. In Christianity, God is perfect and without sin. If he were to sin in any way, by definition he would fall under the law of death, as death is the punishment for sin. Jesus, as an aspect of God, was also blameless and without sin. Many also believe the Bible to be the literal or interpreted word of God, such that any changes throughout time were foreseen and anticipated. I have my own views on this, but for the sake of my argument, we must assume the entire scripture to be God-breathed. If God cannot sin, and the bible must therefore be truthful, then how did God swear by using his own name, if swearing by his own name is sinful?

"For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” -Hebrews 6:13

Therefore, either God sinned by using his own name in vain and cannot be god, God sinned by lying about it in the literal word of God in Scripture, or swearing by using the name of God or its derivatives is not inherently sinful, and the intent or veracity is what is judged.

The_Jewish_Cuban,
@The_Jewish_Cuban@hexbear.net avatar

For me it’s my like for religious Christmas music.

Cloudygrey,

Fellow Indian here. I’m agnostic. I wasn’t raised very religious either. I am ok with eating beef and have tried it a few times. My main thing is that I sometimes do a token prayer when I pass a temple. I also feel icky if my feet touch books.

ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling,

I think everyone should feel icky if they stepped on a Book

Subject6051,

we can’t even touch it with our feet. Same goes for our elders (or any human), I can’t even chill with my dog massage with my feet and play and etc, and my parents won’t approve.

Subject6051,

I also feel icky if my feet touch books.

same dude! I mean, I feel like that’s one thing we can keep. Respecting knowledge! It’s a… https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c7be9c76-f2dc-4927-8fc2-1f250d18d3d7.png

TheAnonymouseJoker,
@TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml avatar

The book thing… damn, as an Indian, I share that trait. Books must be respected regardless of if you follow no or any religion.

Zuzak,

I was raised Catholic and left it at a young age and spent a lot of time uprooting the brainworms so I don’t think there’s much left. However, whenever I can’t find something I really need and start getting stressed, I’ll still recite, “Dear St. Anthony, please come around, my X has been lost and cannot be found.” It’s a useful way to calm down and focus instead of freaking out and panicking.

Other than that, I still retain a lot of the theology I learned in high school, and I can still sometimes get a little opinionated about various things even though I have no dog in the fight.

PeckerBrown,

Feeling guilty for existing.

Subject6051,

*Jesus has entered the chat

meyotch,

Music, especially singing in groups. Once I shrugged off the religious trappings associated with music, it turns out there are very many wonderful songs that have nothing to do with God. The feeling of oneness transcends religion, and is a human experience that we all need to feel once in a while.

XbSuper,

I was going to say nothing, but based on other answers here, it seems Christmas is being held as religious. I personally feel all religious connotations have been thoroughly washed away from xmas over the years, and it’s simply a holiday like any other now. I still love the lights and decorations it brings out, the whole family coming together, and the food.

lorez,

And it wasn’t Christian to begin with.

Sunnydmess,

… Keep Yule in Yuletide Keep Saturn in Saturnalia …

lorez,

They appropriated August 15th too and who knows what else. The trinity reminds me of the Etruscan one. It’s all a copypasta.

sylver_dragon,

The way I view religious holidays is, if it provides an excuse for feasting, drinking or fucking, then let’s celebrate. I don’t care that someone else believes that were feasting for Jesus hanging out or Ostara bringing us a bountiful harvest. I’m just here for the food.

As for other religions left overs, I would say that a lot of my core morals were originally taught to me as part of Christianity. While “thou shalt not kill” is pretty universal and is defensible outside the framework of religion, it it’s where I originally was taught that.

ThatHermanoGuy,

Your wrong. It’s literally the Christ Mass, come on now. People don’t put fucking mangers up all over the place for nothing.

DenSortePingvin,

Uhm historically speaking its yule… a whole week spent eating, drinking, celebrating and toasting to the departure of last year, and wellcoming the new

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!

h3doublehockeysticks,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Subject6051,

    Jew/ish or a Muslim? I don’t do alcohol either (because it’s bad, not because I have a moral problem with that)

    some_guy,

    Not a goddamn thing. If I needed religion to tell me how to live, I’d be completely amoral and depraved. I simply treat others as I wish to be treated and live life trying not to negatively impact anyone else.

    Iraglassceiling,
    @Iraglassceiling@hexbear.net avatar

    What an interesting question!

    I was raised Protestant by an exmo and a lapsed catholic. I still like some of the music, and I think a lot of Christian mythology is really interesting. Jesus occupies a “cool dude” role in my belief system, but he’s not the main focus.

    I was a pretty devout practicing pagan for a while after leaving Christianity.

    Now I just kinda do my own thing, loosely cribbed from the parts of Christianity that I like and some chaos magic stuff and some kemeticism and whatever else seems cool. I kinda focus on nonduality and go from there.

    I really enjoy the idea of ritualistic worship, but that attraction feels like the kind of chemical attraction in my brain that would have taken place whether I was raised in a church or not.

  • 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