I don't. The basis of religious belief is in fact based on emotional reasons (ie. faith, which is held as a virtue).
That may or may not be the case, and will depend on the person. Strictly speaking, however, faith is simply the acceptance of the truth of a proposition without complete or sufficient (direct or empirical) evidence.
Very few people are religious due to any logical or philosophical study, but instead due to fear (usually of death or the unknown) or most commonly inculation/indoctrination.
This is true, although I don't see people's poor reasons to follow a religion a point against religion itself.
The so-called philosophical arguments for a god are easily dismantled, rely on unjustified assumptions/presuppositions and the ones that are logically valid lead to a deistic, uninvolved god at best...which is not the type of god theists describe. Nor is it one even worth caring about.
I'd like for you (if you would, please) to explore and dismantle some of those arguments, show how the assumptions and/or presuppositions they supposedly rely on are unjustified, and show how all valid arguments that lead to the conclusion of God's existence must necessarily be deistic.
I understand that it's a tall order I'm asking, but you did make some strong and bold statements.
I did not become atheist due to my inceldom, but in fact due to reading the bible itself. Scripture being self-contradicting was my first step to losing the faith.
Concluding that Christian theological doctrine is weak (self-contradicting, not holding up to rigor etc.), if it is in fact weak (I haven't explored it), does not necessarily imply that all other theistic doctrines must also be weak.
This is the argument from ignorance. "We don't understand everything therefore god". That doesn't follow. Our complete lack of understanding is irrelevant - it doesn't justify belief in some supreme creator whatsoever. Gaps in knowledge doesn't somehow make unfounded belief more reasonable. Remaining neutral or undecided on the matter until evidence presents itself would be.
You've misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I'm speaking from the perspective of a coper trying to understand and rationalize their situation, and giving commentary on the common outcomes that are due to the natural limitations I've described. I'm saying what usually happens and why. That is, people think about their life situation, become skeptical and ask questions, and then generally become atheist or agnostic.
I did not make the argument from ignorance and suggest that therefore you should believe in God; you're making that argument for me. I'm arguing that because of such limitations of knowledge and understanding, inquisitors of god/their religion/reality/their life etc. are naturally funnelled into the agnostic or atheist position, but they also usually don't make much effort to reposition themselves after they're settled. Elsewhere (not in this thread) I've argued that the only fully rational stance is agnosticism. I don't present every single argument I've ever made on the forum on every issue whenever the subject comes up, so I just roll with it and deal with things as they come up.
However, religions ascribe traits to their gods so unlike a deistic one, these gods can in fact be logically dismantled. I can't with upmost certainty say that a deistic god doesn't exist for the sake of intellectual honesty but I can safely assert that all gods described in all religions are. The burden of proof is on those that makes stupendous claims, not those that deny them. The vastness of the universe does not in any way make an argument for the god(s) of religions.
Suppose you do conclude that there must be a god. As an aside, this being, by necessity, has to be a unitary, singular being, for many reasons, but one of which is that it has to do with properties attributed to an infinitely powerful being that is causally independent (infinity split up to many parts, spread everywhere is still infinity, which is why a stance like pantheism is inconsistent with traditional omni properties of such an infinite being).
What theists attempt to do in essence (and where faith, as a volitional act of belief, comes in) is to bridge the gap between the purely philosophical, deistic understanding of this god (which, ironically, is argued primarily by theists) with its relation to the reality of our physical, mortal, and finite existence. In simple terms, it's like saying, "OK, there's a god out there. Now what? What does this have to do with my life and the fact that I need to eat, sleep, shit, and fuck for however many years I'm alive?" Enter religion.
Theism, in other words, is simply the interpretation of this deistic god that is practical to ordinary, everyday lives. You may or may not choose to subscribe to any particular brand of theism. The decision is quite directly one of faith.
You've pretty much reinforced my argument about religion being for emotional support and cope, not one arrived at through logical deduction nor empirical evidence.
It can certainly be both, but yes, part of the utility of religion en masse (society, tribe etc.) is for emotional support and coping, among other things like establishing social order and stability.
No it doesn't. Even if we assume god's existence (whichever god you're referring to) it still wouldn't make this premise true. Alternatively, if its the Christian god than the implications are far more horrifying. It would mean this being is actively malicious to individuals like you and I.
Again, I'm speaking from the perspective of a coper. From their point of view trying to make sense of things there has to be meaning for there to be something to cope with. Whether or not there actually is a meaning is irrelevant. The one coping has to believe that there is, else it's going to be a pretty shitty cope if you know with absolute certainly that you're engaging in a voluntary delusion.
Religion functions only as a cope to those that don't analyze and inspect it.
Yes. It can also serve as a cope to philosophers and scientists who realize the hard limits of epistemology and their methods of investigation. There are plenty of both who believe in God and follow some religion. They're certainly more than capable of introspection and a critical self-analysis of their beliefs.
Its essentially mass indoctrination combined with superstition.
Indoctrination has a malevolent connotation to it. I won't presume to know the intentions of religious authorities and custodians (rabbis, mullahs, popes etc.), but it's relatively safe to assume that brainwashing and controlling the masses for their own designs is not their unofficial mandate.
As for superstition, it's generally understood to be an irrational belief. Not all beliefs are irrational (e.g., I believe, by induction, that the sun will rise tomorrow and the earth will continue spinning around the sun for at least the next 1000 days), and generally all religious beliefs have rationale. The strength of their rationale may be contended, of course. Faith is belief with reasons, whereas superstition is belief without reasons.
Thus it must be maintained with cognitive dissonance, doublethink and coercion.
Can you give some examples of the first two?
Coercion? You mean social coercion, political (theocratic) coercion, or both? If you hold the view that religion is a top-down system of control, then yes, coercion would be an integral component of maintaining any kind of control (we have police and soldiers who coerce us with guns in secular systems of control).
One must actively deny reality to some extent.
Which aspects of it?
There is strong association with conformity and blind obedience, which is primarily why the assertion of objective morality is trash.
I don't see how you get the second part of that sentence from the first.
Its also why its aligned with bluepill thinking. It is literally the mindset of the NPC, autopilot masses who don't want to delve into the topic of existence too deeply or go along with the majority religion so as to be accepted by society.
This is sadly true, but I don't blame the average person who doesn't want to explore this topic deeply. They're just trying to live their lives, make their rent and grocery payments, and enjoy their brief flash of an existence here on earth.
Religion is the complete opposite of critical thinking which should be the cornerstone of blackpill. We don't engage with the blackpill for emotional reasons but because its supported by evidence, observation.
As a blanket statement, the bolded is incorrect. Not every religion demands blind obedience. Despite the general public's lack of understanding, Islam, for example, actively encourages questioning and challenging the religion on many grounds (philosophical, scientific etc.), since (they argue) it reveals and strengths of the religion's claims.
I want to ask you, what is the
to you? Be as thorough and detailed as you can.
Religion is justly mocked, not because its a cope, but because its a poor cope that involves willful self-delusion.
Willful self-delusion is an erroneous assumption on your part. Think about it logically: If they have faith i.e., they truly believe a thing or set of things in the core of their hearts and minds, then from their perspective it's not a delusion, it's the truth.
Willful self-delusion can occur, however, in people of weak faith who have doubts about their own beliefs. This is also where some of the cognitive dissonance might occur.
Religoncels are called out for the exact same reason the bluepilled cels on IT are. Both groups posses an astounding lack of introspection.
Religion does look like the
and the
does look like a religion,
prima facie, but the parallels you're drawing between the
and religion is one that demands further analysis.