Not my experience. Most religions don’t seem concerned with faith and belief except for the big Abrahamic three.
It is cognitive disconnect when you define religion as the necessity to believe some random nonsense. I am clergy myself and I don’t give a toss about deities or believing in things. I am quite vocal about avoiding belief in anything.
So… you make this true by extending your definitions to apply to everybody else. Which presents something of a paradox.
[quote=“popobawa4u, post:68, topic:49734”]atheists have rarely been more than 5% of the population
How is that even possible? I am not one of those people who get really worked up about it either way, but this just seems so statistically improbable.[/quote]
Well, I can give you my considered opinion on that, which is essentially the mainstream viewpoint. But nobody really knows for sure, and psychologists, sociologists, historians, philosophers and theologians argue about this all the time (when they aren’t arguing over what the definition of a theist is).
The majority of human beings appear to have a tropism towards the religious experience, just as moths have a tropism towards starlight at night. People who reject religion usually do so because of something that a particular religious person or organization has done that is objectionable to them, and are consciously overriding their natural human impulse towards the spiritual. Deathbed conversions are incredibly common, as if one’s ability to resist this tropism is weakened by illness or the fear of death.
Opinion is divided as to whether this tropism is internal, driven by human biology (perhaps an emergent effect of our meat-based consciousness, or a shared characteristic of global human culture driven by shared physiology) or is external, a calling of the divine for human interaction (many religions feature gods who directly command or require human worship). Atheists typically insist on the former 
if they are willing to acknowledge the tropism at all.
Some religions, such as modern Unitarian Universalism and some Buddhist variants, don’t care where the source of this tropism lies. Unitarians believe there is a single source of spiritual yearning, but they think it’s more important to unify together for social good and spiritual growth than it is to argue about whether God is calling to us or if we are desperately driven to create her. It’s enough to understand that the impulse that drives a Catholic nun to prayer is the impulse that drives a Zen monk to meditate, and the best scientific instruments that we have see the same mental state can be achieved through either path.
If you ever have a personal spiritual epiphany, you will know. It’s a real, direct, physical and mental experience that cannot be expressed accurately in words, any more than grief or hopeless love can be. But it’s a positive and uplifting experience, where those are harrowing and wearing. It’s something that, once tasted, you will want to keep with you always.
Sadly, just as a Luna moth’s tropism for moonlight becomes a death sentence in the presence of modern highway lighting, the human tropism for spiritual experience can be captured by bad religions, like the Azteca cult of Huitzilopochtli, or the fundamentalist forms of the desert monotheisms.
On the other claw, if you join a good religion that’s reasonably large, you will gain the benefits of group selection and in-group mutual altruism, and that’s liable to make your life happier even if you never manage to touch the divine. That’s one reason why more than a few atheists join religions, and some lose their atheism there.
I think there’s very little that can be said about religion (as opposed to specific religions) other than what I’ve just said. Internet atheists who insist on lumping together bloody handed Huitzilopochtli and the loving and forgiving God of American Universalism have been blinded by bigotry and hatred. The difference between such belief systems are profound and deep.
if your religion does not require the believing in anything, then it wouldn’t be part of “most” religions, nor would it qualify as a belief system which is how most people define religion, it is a non-belief system or anti-religion. if you don’t believe in anything then you don’t believe in made up bs do you? you aren’t trying to convince other to believe in made up bs are you? even some forms of buddhism and esoteric christianity don’t require belief and encourage challenging…but that is exactly why i didn’t say all, just the vast majority.
Before you assume I’m painting with absolutes, double check for qualifiers that contradict that assumption. no paradox required, no absolutes used, points stand and apply to the majority with concocted beliefs. the ones that discourage the things I mention. you know the ones.
Wow, that was an incredibly bigoted post. You get to define what religion is, and you define it as what you hate?
My faith makes no claims that contradict science in any way. Nor do we have any dogma. There are millions of us. You should visit our churches, there’s one near you. We’ve got coffee.
Interesting comparison with moths, and I’d agree, there tends to be a (diminishing) tropism towards ‘spirituality’. But I’d wholeheartedly disagree with the statement “People who reject religion usually do so because of something that a particular religious person or organization has done”.
Perhaps that’s true in a highly religious society such as the USA, but in a lot of Europe, it’s because we’re raised free of such ideas.
And yes, atheists get great epiphanies too. We just don’t assign a spiritual dimension to it. The mind is far greater and more wondrous than simple spirituality.
which religion is that? in my statement above i haven’t made any claims against any specific religion, i simply point out the very real reasons why most major religions suppress certain ways of thinking, certain freedoms, have longstanding issues with challenging their beliefs and with science. if your personal religion isn’t one of the those then it isn’t one of the majority and isn’t one i’m referring to.
or perhaps it is one of those and you have the common cognitive disconnect that because it is the “right” one that it doesn’t do any of those things.
there is nothing at all bigoted about being anti-religion, i’m not attacking any person for their beliefs or their right to believe whatever they choose, i’m challenging the validity of the beliefs themselves. If a belief is true the people that believe it encourage it to be challenged and tested because that reinforces the belief. if what you believe is true you should encourage as much challenging of it as possible because more light and information shed on it would only reinforce its truth.
Some cults believed that sacrifices and ritual were all important while belief was something that was demonstrated by the transactional nature of worship, and not something required of religious adherents. It’s Christianity that elevates “belief” to a foundational aspect.
You did all the sacrifices because of peer pressure? Our God will protect you.
You believe that our God should be adored, but you have not actually sacrificed anything? Begone, you heathen!
True enough, just after I replied I thought I should qualify that “extending your definitions apply to most everyone else”.
But I still suspect that what you are addressing here is mainly applicable to western, Mesopotamian-derived concepts of religion. And as you acknowledged, even with these the same cannot be assumed of those with esoteric/mystical practices. I could be mistaken, but I think that in much of the world, “religion” could more accurately by referred to as disciplines, practices, mythos, traditions, etc rather than the focus on faith and belief. And I doubt if many of these people would consider what they do “anti-religion”. Sure, mystics often are anti-organized-religion, but they can still have traditions, exercises, literature which have a distinctive character without offering a dogma, nor demanding adherents.
Hmm, I think I do get what you’re saying, but weren’t you raised free of such ideas because of what the Christian church did in Europe? Hundreds of years of atrocities in the name of Jesus the god of love?
In the USA, though, you’re right that it’s usually more personal.
We may have a language barrier regarding words like spiritual and epiphany. Keep in mind that I’m a pantheist, personally, essential monist flavor, so I don’t normally even use the word spiritual. I don’t believe in the supernatural. But nothing that I would call an epiphany could be without a dimension that I would experience as what other people call spirituality, and if I find something larger than my concept of the divine my religion must necessarily grow to encompass it. No dogma to prevent it…
that is a fair point that i can agree with.
i’d also add that I agree that many belief systems started out with some sort of beneficial revelation or profound idea and were probably pretty forward thinking at the time of their conception. i think most of them go off the rails or cross the line when they cross over to “organized religions”.
not all fit the pattern i attempted to describe for sure, and it wasn’t my intention to offend anyone, rather to put words to the issues that (i’ll even go so far as to change most to many) many of the major world religions face.
challenging ideas and beliefs is how we throw out the crap and keep and refine what is beneficial. anything true benefits from this process. anything that discourages it as a self preservation mechanism is most likely crap.
sometimes my passion comes across more strongly worded then I intend. 
Really curious now, do you treat it as a cultural artefact, a civil congregation of people who appreciate the image system?
I see quite a few modern christians behaving this way, seeing their religious indoctrination or choice as fulfilling a need for the promotion of a stronger community culture. Of course, it appears religiously observant Jewish people are often atheists or buddhists. Or even christians apparently.
The ‘image system’ argument always seems strongest of the attractors to me. If you have grown up in a culture that was primarily, say, christian; if you have inculcated the image system, you probably think very similarly to actual, theistic chritians who ‘struggle with their faith’.
The underlying archetypal attractors of ideation are formed before we are able to critically emplace them within our own self-design. Living with them and finding value in them need not necessarily be something to be wary of but I get the feeling @redesigned is really taking issue with people who allow their image system to overwhelm their ability to think rationally.
I’m kind of taken aback at your response.
if they have a problem with snowmen then i bet they really have a problem with these:
(a snow blower for those that live in warm climates)
You’re right regarding the word ‘spiritual’. That’s why I enclosed it with quotations originally. It’s a most descriptive word, but with unwanted connotations.
I wouldn’t say that the church’s checkered history had any part in many atheists upbringings, just education and rationality are enough. It’s not like we don’t believe in Santa because he broke his promise of that bicycle. We just outgrow silly ideas.
I am curious though. What religion are you? And if there’s no room for the supernatural, what is your cup of tea?
But you are claiming that you get to define what these beliefs are, and in a totally self-serving way. You’re saying that in order to be a “majority religion,” certain things which you know are not defensible have to be articles of faith - even though as @popobawa4u pointed out you’re basing those things on the Judeo-Christian monotheisms which are notable for being very different from most of the other religions. It’s completely circular reasoning. You’re redefining anything that contradicts your thesis as being “not majority, thus not big enough to matter” or “not a religion”.
And really, what difference does “majority” make anyway? Is it fair to discount the beliefs of so many millions of people - do you realize how many Hindus there are, for example? Hinduism is essentially syncretist (although Hindus sometimes take offense at hearing me say so) so there are probably thousands of variants of Hindu practice that are nothing like what you’ve claimed are defining features of “majority” (i.e. important) religions.
You seem like a thinking person; I often enjoy your posts. Examine how you’re arguing and tell me if it’s truly not unexamined bigotry seeking justification. I’m willing to bet you don’t know what the spiritual practices of Jains or Druse or Hindus are without looking them up, yet you’ve made statements about religion as a whole, inaccurately stereotyping hundreds of millions of the devout. It’s not only totally unfair rhetoric but also a classic tactic, incidentally, of the Christians in the US government who periodically try to redefine what the law says a religion is so they can persecute people who aren’t Christians. Let the religious define themselves, then you can argue against the actual beliefs of actual religions… if it turns out that you actually disagree with them.
I’m a pantheist (as are many Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews). My own particular flavor of pantheism is pretty well defined by Spinoza with a dash of Cantor. God is defined* as that which is greater than all other things, and no thing may be greater than anything that contains it, therefore God is everything that is. Thus, my God provably physically exists, and I approach her as a participant, not as a supplicant. Nothing exists that is not God, thus nothing can be super- or sub-natural, it’s all natural.
I attend a Unitarian Universalist church, which is very welcoming to such as I (and to atheists too!). No faith required, no conflict with science desired, in the UU church. If someone proves something you thought was true isn’t true, then you learned something. No dogma, no problem.
Justifiably so, I guess. I apologize. But you know, in these kinds of discussions there’s always this tendency to make religion the whipping boy for all crimes, and more specifically for crimes that can be directly shown to be those of specific religions. It feels not unlike racialist bigotry… people openly saying “well all those folks I’ve never met, who never did anything to harm me, are all just as guilty as these egregious criminals over here because those religious people are all one group and all the same.” And then other people chime in, agreeing, and everyone’s amazed that anyone would be insulted. Personally, I don’t want to be told that I have to believe in Christian stuff or else my religion is not valid, I find that to be tremendously offensive.
Edit: added stuff in response to @miasm
* I think one’s definition of God is the most concise definition of one’s religious beliefs. Atheists usually define god as “something that doesn’t exist” and work outwards from there. Judeo-Christian faiths usually define god as “a sky man who most definitely has a penis and requires you to believe in him”, but the more mystical sects (like the Sufis) are much harder to pin down.
If I say ‘universe’, does that encapsulate the same meaning as when you say ‘god’? Would the universe, itself, have to be conscious or intelligent in some way, rather than having conscious ‘limbs’ like humans as part of its structure?
This starts to sound like some of the more simplified formulations of what buddhists call ‘buddha mind’ or ‘big mind’ and if so, in my view, does not really constitute theism.
This is where the religious-spiritual practice of indoctrination to an image system becomes problematic. Shouldn’t we be seeking to use terms which clarify understanding, rather than occulting the thoughts and images into some particular religious fold?
I often answer the ‘do you believe in god’ question with ‘there is no god when there is nothing but god’.
But it’s really just a complex put down. I’m an non-thiest because conceptions of god are unworkable in any kind of language game.
I just started reading up on Unitarian Universalism. Interesting stuff.
This thread has turned really serious, and I’ve had enough serious discussions lately, so my answers are gonna be light and some comic relief.
Me, as a Finn, can take the cold.
… no seriously I can’t. I don’t know how it’s possible to grow up in a country where the temperature easily reaches -20C- during the winter (it’s only -10C now, but it reached -18 recently) and not get used to the cold. I hate it, every single winter, And yet I’ve gladly hiked and skied in Lapland during winter. Maybe we Finns just are masochists.
Hah, never would’ve believed that’s a real thing. Chinophobia seems to have many more hits on Google, though, sadly. How can people hate snow? It is beautiful.
Saki:
I was also thinking of Olaf, but he’s a bit overrated. Here’s the snowman that was my childhood crush and dream:
It wouldn’t have worked out. He was a real jerk.
I can’t believe that’s a real thing. I only this winter learned that they made a sequel to the original, and now this? Oi oi.
Though to be fair, the boy wasn’t sharing so screw him.
