Discussion A definition of religion. Am I missing/misunderstanding anything?

[aeoae]

The definition:

Religion is a system of myths about the interactions between the human and the superhuman.

• Myths are meaning making stories
• Myths generate meaning in four ways:
  • As abstractions to be reenacted through:
    • Rituals
    • Temples
    • Priests
    • The Practicing
    • Unwitting non-practicing
  • As explanations of the unknown, including but not limited to:
    • An afterlife
    • Human imperfection
    • Suffering
    • Awe
  • As examples of correct and incorrect behavior, either through:
    • Narrative
    • Metaphor
    • Explicit Codes of Conduct
  • As universal and unchangeable Truths

• The sacred is anything that presents either a current or a past way to interact/interface with the superhuman, including:
  • Animals
  • Lands
  • Items
  • People
  • Priests
  • Texts
  • Ideas
  • Arts
  • Languages
  • Words
  • Diets
  • Rituals
  • Sectarian interpretations
• Each of the above contains an associated myth(s)

Some other thoughts:

• Philosophy is the examination of the human condition
• Philosophy itself isn’t a religion
• Religion presents a philosophy from “womb to tomb”
• Religion gives an identity to an in-group and an out-group
• Those who abide by and participate in these myths comprise an in-group

• Many religions, including ancient Rome, were/are more concerned with strict practice (religio) than belief in order to uphold:
  • Piety (pietas) – the observation of the traditional religion, or the “ways of the ancestors” (mos maiorum)
  • Peace between the human and the superhuman (pax Deorum)

• Secularism is religious choice across all levels of society
• Secularism can give the false impression that we are not in a religious world
• Empiricism is simply a methodology (a tool)
• Empiricism isn’t itself a religion
• Empiricism can never answer Truth. It can only answer truth.

I wasn't raised religiously so I'm brainstorming these as an outsider.
Like the title asks, am I missing/misunderstanding anything?

 

[TheProphetMuscle]

Religion is for sheep

 

[WizardofSoda]

The definition I came to is a very broad definition of religion.. What the people of a society believe is the truth is the religion, and who they look to in society to tell them the truth on things are the priests.

My definition it also doesn't differentiate between something that is say provable scientific fact or mistake belief in science, or mystical things and spiritual things that aren't provable by science. Its just what people in the society believe and things they don't know who the authorities people see as.

 

[aeoae]

I will add sacred hairstyles (Sikh) and clothing as well.

 

[aeoae]

Religion is for sheep

Which is why I want to understand it. There's a lot of sheep in this world.

 

[IncelWithHate]

The definition I came to is a very broad definition of religion.. What the people of a society believe is the truth is the religion, and who they look to in society to tell them the truth on things are the priests.

My definition it also doesn't differentiate between something that is say provable scientific fact or mistake belief in science, or mystical things and spiritual things that aren't provable by science. Its just what people in the society believe and things they don't know who the authorities people see as.

So you would agree with me in that religions do not necessarily have to be theistic? That things like Stalism, feminism, progressivism, multiculturism, Juche can be considered religions?

 

[WizardofSoda]

So you would agree with me in that religions do not necessarily have to be theistic? That things like Stalism, feminism, progressivism, multiculturism, Juche can be considered religions?

Ya the way I define it which I admit is only one way of defining religion.. if people in an area belief in feminism for example that is part of their religion. Good indications is criticism or questioning of the religious belief isn't allowed in the society.

There can only be one truth and normies and foids don't take kindly to the one truth being questioned. Its is also viewed as dangerous by authorities and people in society for anyone to question any part of the religion... If you could question one part of it, you could then question any part of it.

Normies and foids jobs also often depend on the beliefs. For example however many people work in recycling. Which it makes zero sense when I looked into it. But we still have thousands of people that is their good job working on recycling. So to question it, it then is threatening their jobs.

 

[IncelWithHate]

Ya the way I define it which I admit is only one way of defining religion.. if people in an area belief in feminism for example that is part of their religion. Good indications is criticism or questioning of the religious belief isn't allowed in the society.

There can only be one truth and normies and foids don't take kindly to the one truth being questioned. Its is also viewed as dangerous by authorities and people in society for anyone to question any part of the religion... If you could question one part of it, you could then question any part of it.

Normies and foids jobs also often depend on the beliefs. For example however many people work in recycling. Which it makes zero sense when I looked into it. But we still have thousands of people that is their good job working on recycling. So to question it, it then is threatening their jobs.

My definition of religion (or alternatively, cults) relies on three main points:

• Worship/veneration of a central figurehead/ideology. This does not have to be a fictional god/creature (Examples: Abrahamic faiths, Greek/ Roman pantheon), and in fact can be a person (usually a dictator or despot). Examples: Stalism, Masoism, Juche - I joke they are no different than other theocracies besides replacing the god character with a human. Hence "cult of personality". Alternatively it can be an idea that is strongly pervasive among its followers. Examples: Feminism - now you've switched out a god or human figurehead for one of female worship. Its the gynocentric equivalent of theorcratic rule. Note how speaking of women in any fashion even approaching negative is subject to quick criticism and retaliation. Its analogous to Mussolini's blackshirts or religion's concept of blasphemy. They all possess a hatred for free speech, and for much the same reasons.
• Belief in said central figurehead/ideology is accepted by its followers primarily on faith - belief without evidence. Often said belief contradicts real world observation.
• The implementation of dogma, which is inversely correlated to their mental stability, particularly when the subject comes under critique. This ties into the erosion and even criminalizing of free speech mentioned before. To enable the tenets of their religion, they are required to squash any heresy relating to empirical or measurable evidence in the real world. Hard data, for example threatens to undermine their mass delusion. In computing terms, you could say SJWs, Evangelical Christians, Feminists and so on all function off of the same OS. They just disagree on which anti-virus programs to use.

 

[WizardofSoda]

My definition of religion (or alternatively, cults) relies on three main points:

• Worship/veneration of a central figurehead/ideology. This does not have to be a fictional god/creature (Examples: Abrahamic faiths, Greek/ Roman pantheon), and in fact can be a person (usually a dictator or despot). Examples: Stalism, Masoism, Juche - I joke they are no different than other theocracies besides replacing the god character with a human. Hence "cult of personality". Alternatively it can be an idea that is strongly pervasive among its followers. Examples: Feminism - now you've switched out a god or human figurehead for one of female worship. Its the gynocentric equivalent of theorcratic rule. Note how speaking of women in any fashion even approaching negative is subject to quick criticism and retaliation. Its analogous to Mussolini's blackshirts or religion's concept of blasphemy. They all possess a hatred for free speech, and for much the same reasons.
• Belief in said central figurehead/ideology is accepted by its followers primarily on faith - belief without evidence. Often said belief contradicts real world observation.
• The implementation of dogma, which is inversely correlated to their mental stability, particularly when the subject comes under critique. This ties into the erosion and even criminalizing of free speech mentioned before. To enable the tenets of their religion, they are required to squash any heresy relating to empirical or measurable evidence in the real world. Hard data, for example threatens to undermine their mass delusion. In computing terms, you could say SJWs, Evangelical Christians, Feminists and so on all function off of the same OS. They just disagree on which anti-virus programs to use.

Ya exactly all of these movements are against objective analysis of the facts. Because for whatever reason they emotionally become disciples of a religion. They don't want any tenets of their religion challenged. So they block out any information that contradicts any part of their religion.

For example soys were championing 'science'. But then they were attacking science including the finest institutions of science when the studies were showing that perma-masking, lockdowns, travel bans, closing businesses, vaccine passports weren't reduce the spread of the 'virus'.

Soys were 'fact checking', and 'debunking' those studies. Meanwhile soys were attacking anyone who questioned science studies that early on were supporting their beliefs, the soys calling those people anti-science.

Luckily the national and state authorities in the government eventually off-ramped those soy policies when it was shown they weren't working and people were very angry and the cost outweighed the benefits.


We also see how religious adherents they would tear each other apart if they were allowed. We see right wing adherents listen only to right wing media, and left wing adherents listen only to left wing media.

 

[IncelWithHate]

Ya exactly all of these movements are against objective analysis of the facts. Because for whatever reason they emotionally become disciples of a religion. They don't want any tenets of their religion challenged. So they block out any information that contradicts any part of their religion.

For example soys were championing 'science'. But then they were attacking science including the finest institutions of science when the studies were showing that perma-masking, lockdowns, travel bans, closing businesses, vaccine passports weren't reduce the spread of the 'virus'.

Soys were 'fact checking', and 'debunking' those studies. Meanwhile soys were attacking anyone who questioned science studies that early on were supporting their beliefs, the soys calling those people anti-science.

Luckily the national and state authorities in the government eventually off-ramped those soy policies when it was shown they weren't working and people were very angry and the cost outweighed the benefits.


We also see how religious adherents they would tear each other apart if they were allowed. We see right wing adherents listen only to right wing media, and left wing adherents listen only to left wing media.

One aspect I've noticed about such movements is that females are almost always involved. According to statistics, women tend to be more religious than men. I originally attributed this to the social factor (ie. going to church, mingling) but similarly homeopathy, astrology/horoscopes are also majority female phenomena. Likewise, SJW, progressives tend to heavily lean towards to women or at least female centric. And of course, feminism but that's more overt expression of female nature combined with political power.

It seems females are always at the center of 'religion' in some fashion, even if they are not the primary beneficiaries. If it were not for the influence of Constantine's mother, Christianity probably wouldn't have risen above the status of a cult.

Free speech is a concept completely foreign to females as well. They are, on average, much more sensitive and keen to take offense on various topics, which explains one of the reasons why they are so supportive of facist regimes, dictators and censorship. Rather than encourage the proliferation of competing ideas and open debate, they prefer to prioritize feelings. "Safe spaces", "Social Justice" and "Cancel Culture" are just the modern day equivalent of female hysteria leading to the attempted silencing of people/topics they don't wish to hear or might potentially depict them in a bad light.

The more I study these topics, the more I am convinced females are the crux of most, if not all of the problems that plague and ultimately hold back humanity from its true potential.

 

[aeoae]

So you would agree with me in that religions do not necessarily have to be theistic? That things like Stalism, feminism, progressivism, multiculturism, Juche can be considered religions?

I think a large part of definining a 'religion' comes down to how comprehensive its mythos is.

For instance, Stalinism presents an absolutist stance on the afterlife. This atheistic line is adhered to without compromise or question to the point where it behaves like an afterlife-myth in the mind of a religious fundamentalist. Combine this with the idol veneration of 'Stalin corners' replacing Orthodox idol corners in houses and the obvious blending of early Marxism and Christian myth, and yeah, Stalinism during its height was a bona fide religion.

However, Feminism
doesn't have the same sweeping mythos as Stalinism. Yes it has talking points and ideological, absolutist ideas, but its scope is simply too narrow to qualify. Ironically they would say the same thing about the Black Pill.

 

[IncelWithHate]

However, Feminism
doesn't have the same sweeping mythos as Stalinism. Yes it has talking points and ideological, absolutist ideas, but its scope is simply too narrow to qualify. Ironically they would say the same thing about the Black Pill.

Yes it does. Just look at the nebulous, imaginary concept of the 'Patriarchy' feminists rally against so much. Rounding out their 'mythos' is the historic revisionism they engage in.

 

[aeoae]

Yes it does. Just look at the nebulous, imaginary concept of the 'Patriarchy' feminists rally against so much. Rounding out their 'mythos' is the historic revisionism they engage in.

The 'Patriarchy' exists as a demiurgic figure, but unlike Gnosticism the feminist demiurge presents no creation myth, nor an afterlife myth, nor a prediction of final cataclysm. I still think Feminism falls short of being a religion.

 

[IncelWithHate]

no creation myth, nor an afterlife myth, nor a prediction of final cataclysm.

Which are all completely unnecessary. Again, that narrows religion down to theistic perceptions which is shortsighted. My view on religion is more on how it compels people's behavior and actions than strict mythology.

Even then, feminism largely fulfills those prerequisites anyway. Women claim in their version of 'herstory' that matriarchies are the true and correct path of humanity, prominent feminists have been quoted on advocating eugenics (exclusively on ethnic men) and eventual goal of eliminating the vast majority of men (90% IIRC). Those are more than enough to provide them sufficient motivation for their misandrist dogma and implement gynocentric policies and laws, as well as color their treatment of men on a social level. Lack of an afterlife myth is completely irrelevant, because they have already met the other stipulations outlined above that makes them completely identical to any 'traditional' religion.

The color may be different, but if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[aeoae]

Women claim in their version of 'herstory' that matriarchies are the true and correct path of humanity, prominent feminists have been quoted on advocating eugenics (exclusively on ethnic men) and eventual goal of eliminating the vast majority of men (90% IIRC). Those are more than enough to provide them sufficient motivation for their misandrist dogma and implement gynocentric policies and laws, as well as color their treatment of men on a social level.

I see your point. I suppose this is an issue of definition. If I take your definition, then yes you're correct.

But I prefer to take a very strict view of religion. I think 'ideology' here still suffices, because there is a useful distinction between the two.

Ideologies intentionally adopt aspects of religion for the purpose of seperating the ideologue from reality. Unlike religions, however, ideologues must reconcile their 'reality' with actual reality. This causes cognitive dissonance and neurosis, and eventually purity spirals and extremism.

Unlike ideology, Religion doesn't inevitably end in extremism (although there are violent fundamentalists in all religions -- I see that as an issue of the individual, not of the system) because a religion's mythos is so expansive and encompassing that there is no cognitive dissonance for the believer; religious faith is a holistic delusion.

As for nontheism versus theism, let's examine Buddhism. By my strict definition Buddhism still qualifies as a religion because it claims that we live in a linear, eternal time without beginning or end; all is stuck in a state of coming and going, and all is a product of eternal causality. Likewise, ask 100 feminists the origin of reality and you'll get 100 different answers. Ask 100 buddhists, and although they all may explain it differently, their answers will still revolve around the same concept. The Buddhist's myth is explicit and predictive of both the past and the future, and therefore is still a myth of 'creation' and 'end'.

If you want to get trippy with it, 'coming and going' could be interpreted as a myth of an infinite number of infinitesimal 'creations/cataclysms', as moments are forever born from the last and bearing the next in death.

 

[IncelWithHate]

I see your point. I suppose this is an issue of definition. If I take your definition, then yes you're correct.

But I prefer to take a very strict view of religion. I think 'ideology' here still suffices, because there is a useful distinction between the two.

I 'conflate' the two because they strike the same psychological cords in humans. They are identical in that respect - I would go so far as to say today's modern day religionists are yesterdays zealots. They may be secular, they may be atheists, but they are still the same old dogmatic, reality denying extremists. Note how the same arguments used to criticize god belief and support free speech can be applied to concepts like feminism. Did I mention progressives, SJWs, feminists indoctrinate and inculcate the younger generation into their belief system? Again, just like traditional religion and for the exact same reasons (require young, impressionable, non critically thinking minds to accept the bullshit).

Ideologies intentionally adopt aspects of religion for the purpose of separating the ideologue from reality. Unlike religions, however, ideologues must reconcile their 'reality' with actual reality. This causes cognitive dissonance and neurosis, and eventually purity spirals and extremism.

You say 'unlike' religions, but compare the public mobs of feminists to say, evangelical Christians or rabid muslims.

That's right - there's no difference. You could switch around their views and there would be no relevant distinction. That's my point. It doesn't matter that they take somewhat different steps. They all inevitably reach the same outcome.

Also note that statistically women are significantly more religious than men. There's a reason for that.

Unlike ideology, Religion doesn't inevitably end in extremism (although there are violent fundamentalists in all religions -- I see that as an issue of the individual, not of the system) because a religion's mythos is so expansive and encompassing that there is no cognitive dissonance for the believer; religious faith is a holistic delusion.

I disagree, they all require cognitive dissonance and in fact the reason why theistic religions are failing in public discourse is precisely because they instill discomfort in the believer. Reasoned arguments are more difficult in regards to modern day religions as I call them because they haven't yet been 'tamed' like how the concept of religion has with the enlightenment. Additionally, feminism has the shield of gynocentrism to aid it.

As for nontheism versus theism, let's examine Buddhism. By my strict definition Buddhism still qualifies as a religion because it claims that we live in a linear, eternal time without beginning or end; all is stuck in a state of coming and going, and all is a product of eternal causality. Likewise, ask 100 feminists the origin of reality and you'll get 100 different answers. Ask 100 buddhists, and although they all may explain it differently, their answers will still revolve around the same concept. The Buddhist's myth is explicit and predictive of both the past and the future, and therefore is still a myth of 'creation' and 'end'.

I don't disagree, but this also doesn't at all reject the definition I described. I think you're getting caught up on the concept of mythos itself opposed to what the end goal of what that concept was.

 

[aeoae]

I think you're getting caught up on the concept of mythos itself opposed to what the end goal of what that concept was.

Can you expand on this?

Reasoned arguments are more difficult in regards to modern day religions as I call them because they haven't yet been 'tamed' like how the concept of religion has with the enlightenment.

Also, what do you mean when you say 'tamed'? That sounds interesting.

Thanks for taking my post seriously btw, I find this fun.

 

[IncelWithHate]

Can you expand on this?

To be concise, the mythos, afterlife, scripture, etc in traditional religon is a means to an end. In and of itself it is not that important. You can see this viewpoint validated by the fact greek/roman (or any 'extinct' religion) mythology is just that - called mythology and regarded as fiction once it fell from popularity. If it wasn't Christianity that Constantine adopted for his political purposes, another framework would have worked just as well. Its using that framework to effect a large group of people that really matters.

Hence, things like feminism not checking all of the 'boxes' theistic religions do is unnecessary - it doesn't have to attain similar results.

Also, what do you mean when you say 'tamed'? That sounds interesting.

"The western enlightenment" as it were is basically a period that emphasized secularism, (somewhat) more separation between church/state hence weakening of theocracy. It 'forced' Christianity in the West to a more moderate, restrained iteration of itself. This is massively simplifying things; but to give an example: Note how Christianity and its influence was previously over the last few hundred years and contrast that with Islam.