As someone who was once religious, I can tell you at at least for me, this never really dealt with existential dread. Maybe I just didn't believe hard enough. But it stands to reason that thoughts of the afterlife do not do much: religious people do not seem, in the main, to have significantly less fear or avoidance of death. The drive to live would be pretty anemic if a mere mental trick could defuse it.
Personally, now that I'm secular, I still fear death. But at least I understand that that fear only exists because of my built in neurobiological values, which are there because they helped my ancestors reproduce. That doesn't really change things much either, but at least it's a true explanation. Before there was always a cognitive dissonance: if things are going to be way way better after we die, why do we try so hard to avoid death?
I remain deeply religious, and there is something of a fear of death, but it is mostly related to the fear of the unknown. I believe I will see God face to face and that's kind of terrifying. I am honestly more afraid of pain than death.
Any religious faith is a faith, even though people like to suggest silly arguments that faith necessarily is blind or unbounded, but it is still a hope in something unseen.
Which god? Faith just makes you live a life without evidence. Seems like a poor choice to me. And with all of the negative associates of being religious seems to me you're blowing the one absolutely confirmed life for some fairy tale.
Living life without evidence is one way to look at it, another way to look at it is living to a moral code that thousands of years of humanity has agreed provides a happy life. If you look at most of the world religions they pretty much agree on what those are: Abrahamic religions call them out as Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust (note on this, it is all consuming desire it is not just sex but sex is a powerful vector for unhealthy lust. As an example one can lust after social acceptance), Anger, Greed and Sloth. Buddhism calls the three fires out as ignorance (Greed, Sloth), attachment (Envy, Lust, Gluttony), and aversion (Pride, Anger).
I don't see it as a poor choice to live to those defined moral codes. The negative association with being religious is due to many people letting other people think for them now days. If one take the actions and words of a person over studying for oneself what the text say then that is exactly what one is doing. If one ascribes negative connotations to the underpinnings, without knowledge of whether those that claim knowledge yet may be ignorant of what the text says, then one acts in the same ignorance. Most of the religious texts, espouse universal love, non-judgment (by other people) and harmony. Most of the people that claim they understand them, have never event read the texts from end to end, much less any of the competing religions text to compare and contrasting one against the other.
For example let's take Abrahamic religions because they are fun to pick on, most Muslims, Jews and Christians (especially Christians) could not even tell you what Psalm 137:9 is, much less explain why someone would be happy to dash child against the rocks. Well deeper understanding would be that this is what the Israelites wanted, revenge for their dead children that were bludgeoned to death. But what happened was not revenge, but rather judgment and that is the lesson being conveyed, our hearts will seek revenge but what puts things in balance is not revenge but judgment. Point being, I have been hard pressed to find a single laymen from any of the 3 Abrahamic branches, that know the verse much less that could explain it (honestly Muslims where the most knowledgeable on the subject). Further most Christians don't even realize that Jesus was a devout pacifist, cavorted with mainly "sinners" and routinely spoke out about the pious.
As a side note Jeremiah 32:35 is another fun one. Why did it not enter his mind? Is he not all knowing and omnipotent?
While it may be a fairy tail, by all accounts Jesus and Buddha were pretty awesome dudes, I want to be like them, even if it's just for the time I am here.
> I don't see it as a poor choice to live to those defined moral codes.
As I'm sure you are aware, most atheists follow similar moral beliefs and, as far as I'm aware, there's little evidence that being religious helps you adhere to these rules any better.
Yes please don't read that as an implication that by default that 1) All religious people are moral 2) all non-religious are not. My point was more of the fact of the outlook the two views seem to produce. The reality is Atheism did not produce an MLK or a Ghandi, rather it has produced Nihilism and Nietzsche from its fruits. There is nothing wrong with that, without ying there cannot be yang. I was just highlighting (in my other post) that as observers we can actually choose how we see reality.
Some of that choice may appear delusional, or may in fact be delusional, but does not make it any less real to the observer. Take for example the monks that claim enlightenment, they believe suffering is an illusion and that basically you just have to not believe in suffering to not suffer. This could be deluded thinking and sounds crazy on the surface, until you see one of them trance and ignore the most extreme pain. Their delusion manifests itself into reality just by their will.
There is similar delusional thinking that comes from Atheistic points of view and they have had real world manifestations. I am hesitant to name some of them due to the fact that it will look like I am claiming them atheism is not a moral choice. Which is not the intent.
Please do. What delusional thinking do atheists engage in? To be an atheist one only needs to not be convinced god(s) exist? Are you saying we are deluded into thinking that the existence of gods has been proven? Please expand on this?
It's easy to live by moral codes when you cherry pick your own religion. You seems to avoid the moral codes mentioned in the same book that encourage genocide, rape and slavery.
How do you know which morals to cherry pick? That would be humanistic morals - you pick the ones that we follows. The ones that encourage being good to others and respect their wellbeing.
Religion provides no benefit or advantage over atheistic humanistic morals. It does provide benefits to the region - money, power, control and the ability to avoid responsibility.
Jesus encouraged people to devoid themselves of personal goods and family and follow him. Well at least in the Bible fables. More cherry-picking.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not suspect that you are well read on the subject matter:
On the matter of genocide, the texts are very clear that we all have to experience death, no one escapes it. In the text god does not see death as a tragedy. It is the expected outcome, this is exactly why I referenced Psalm 137:9 because most people do not know how to explain what is going on, because they have not read the full text much less many times to understand the context. Again I ask why would someone be happy to bash children against rocks. Did god command them to do it, did he condemn them for it? Jeremiah 32:35 get's to the heart of it. If there is a god and he is eternal and he views our lives as eternal then the death of this life is no more than telling a child to not touch a hot stove but it is clear throughout the text, that he exalts the innocent and the downtrodden. If one makes a habit of abusing these classes he tends to anger, there is no inconsistency here. In the old testament before the time of kings he was in direct commandment of his elect. He exacted judgment on several nations specifically due to the fact that they where sacrificing their children to Baal. While you may not agree with it, this is extremely consistent with the fact that from the outset humanity is to be judged by death.
On rape, I will forgo rehashing it, I would assume that wikipedia is a fairly well vetted war zone. It is fairly well accepted that the Torah condemns rape. Now we can certainly argue over our present day view against the remedies for said act as laid out in the Torah but to say that the book encourages it is not factually true.
As for slavery Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 10:2-9 describe this very succinctly, and that is man is flawed, man enslaves man or more aptly put man's inhumanity to man. It is clearly laid out that slavery was not by design, but rather slavery is man's desire to be their own gods and subjugate other men. God recognizes that we are fallen but does not condone the practices that we do that are inhumane. The text do not advocate for slavery yet over and over repeat the lesson of exalting the meek. The Jews were slaves exalted out of Egypt. Joseph was of wealth and favor and sold into slavery by his brother. He was a loyal and faithful servant thru his suffering and was in the end redeemed. The text never says slavery = good. It says if you find yourself in that situation, do not lament your situation, be kind, be humble, be of service to people. If we contrast it with Jainism they teach a very similar concept of suffering is an illusion. None of this says slavery is good, rather the lesson to be learned is suffering is part of this life, no matter what you are presented with, try to make the best of it.
Your powers of rationalization are substantial
I find that most people have not taken the time to read all of the major religions texts a least a few times to understand them. So it is hard to argue rationalization when one does not fully comprehend the text. I know because I was one of those people that used to mock the religious but it came from a position of ignorance as I had only cursory reading and cherry picked evidence. When in fact most of the religious text (Pick your religion) are fairly logically consistent, especially when it comes to moral codes. That does not make them true, but it does mean that one does not have to rationalization them. They very well may be fairy tales, but where certainly written by smart men who where logically consistent. The problem is that the texts span thousands of years. Five minutes of reading the cliff notes will not suffice if one wants to truly understand the texts and not listen to what the Baptist or Dawkins have to say is in them, because the reality is they both are flat out wrong.
The funny part is I see the same thinking on both sides and it has been a real eye opener as to why so many sect of the Abrahamic religions can exist. Almost none that "believe" actually read the thing end to end, so they just take what their flavor tells them is the truth as the truth. On the other end, you get the majority of detractors who just parrot Dawkins and have never read the works to decide for themselves if it tells a rational and logical story, or they hear some text that seems really f'ed up and just go yep fruitcakes, or like me they were raised in it, never read it, were told what the text said at a young age, had no interest in reading it, and checked out before that interest could develop, due to other people saying what was in the text.
Jesus encouraged people to devoid themselves of personal goods and family and follow him. Well at least in the Bible fables.
Jesus said this world is temporary and the pursuits of it are trivial. None of that is untrue, it all goes away when you die. Even, if he was a crazy dude that thought he was the son of god, he is still right. None of it matters in the end. He advocated for a full and abundant life and said he was the example to follow to achieve that. It's not that crazy of a thought that the guy placed experiences and happiness about material pursuits, and saw that as the example of how to achieve happiness, as from all I have seen material pursuits are a trapping and we become slaves to our possessions. Meanwhile those that have not succumb to this material world seem to be much happier:
Personally, now that I'm secular, I still fear death. But at least I understand that that fear only exists because of my built in neurobiological values, which are there because they helped my ancestors reproduce. That doesn't really change things much either, but at least it's a true explanation. Before there was always a cognitive dissonance: if things are going to be way way better after we die, why do we try so hard to avoid death?