[nimonian]

> maybe people need some religion in their lives to give direction and meaning

I can't just accept dogma because I'm miserable. I can't just say 2+2=5 even if it would make me feel better. Religion isn't something you can just pick up like pilates. If life is inherently without meaning or direction, I'd rather go with that and be true to myself than refract the universe through some doctrine I understand to be false.

Self-knowledge, mindfulness, wisdom, spirituality, reflectiveness - I can make my peace with these. But I think it is bordering on unfair to proffer a deity as a solution to depression and anxiety.

[kough]

Practicing regularly to increase self-knowledge, thinking spiritually, reflecting on your relation to the world – do you not consider that a religion? Organized Christianity is just one flavor.

[nostromo]

> Practicing regularly to increase self-knowledge, thinking spiritually, reflecting on your relation to the world – do you not consider that a religion?

I'd call that mindfulness not religion.

[germinalphrase]

Religion has been the guiding force for this kind of internal reflection and family/community thought. As religion has declined in many west societies, we haven’t replaced them effectively.

We may not need more religion, but it sure seems like we need something. Building our society so heavily on economic expediency can’t be healthy long term.

[munk-a]

I'm in favor of more prolific philosophy circles. There is probably a group in your area that gets together regularly to discuss the works of different philosophers, join in and study up on some Kierkegaard and I think you'll find it gives you a lot of the same pay off.

[germinalphrase]

I’m familiar with those kinds of meetings and family members that attend. I’m fortunate in that I work in a field that is very much service oriented (from a humanism point of view) that offers a lot of fulfillment and the opportunity to consider & and demonstrate my personal values.

My comments - I guess - are more generally focused. I feel similarly about male identify. We’ve walked back many aspects of traditional masculinity (often for good reason and for positive social benefits) but haven’t - as a society - replaces them with alternatives. I think it leaves many young men without a positive vision for “what it means to be a man”. These are opportunities, but I don’t know how we can work through them without a distinct shared cultural vision for what we all want to be. Individualism has its downsides too.

[rollinDyno]

What would you call a religion?

[nimonian]

Maybe I jumped the gun there and got a bit sidelined by semantics. In my mind, theism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for religion. Ritual, on the other hand, intersects with religion and irreligion (again, in my mind). I saw another comment speaking about 'atheistic religion' which to me is an oxymoron. I now think the word religion is overloaded.

Didn't mean any offence to anyone - I have an issue with the idea of palliative doublethink, not religion, theistic or otherwise.

[zolthrowaway]

You're right that you can't just dive head first into a religion. I was raised Catholic, but I don't identify with that at all anymore. I was atheist for a few years, but recently I've been reading Tao Te Ching and I've really taken to it. Religions don't have to be western and you don't have to believe in some omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator. It might be worth exploring some "religions" that you've never thought about before. I'm not saying they're going to cure your depression, but they may change how you see the world.

[flycaliguy]

I picked it up in 15 minutes with a DMT trip, but results may vary.

Stoic philosophy can also float in a nice pantheist grey area. I always keep in mind that the most insightful and present religious people I’ve ever met are by no men’s dogmatic and their spiritual exploration is part of their spirituality. The journey, the acceptance of your own fallibility, mindfulness, these are all parts of faith. The word faith works better for me than religion.

[derp_dee_derp]

dude religion isn't just dogma. Its also the collected wisdom of untold generations about how to live and not live your life. The stuff religion recommends, on average, works to make people's lives better for those who practice it.

our society has completely thrown the baby out with the bathwater when we arbitrarily decided that all organized religions are bad and that God doesn't exist.

[lapnitnelav]

We've been killing gods since the dawn of times.

The word religion itself originally was all about worshiping a god.

Now everyone can define "God" how they want and follow whatever the scriptures advise, but let's not fool ourselves here, it's always been about power / control.

[dragonwriter]

> The word religion itself originally was all about worshiping a god.

Not really, it was specifically about life under monastic vows (which, where it was coined, involved worship of the Christian God, but that wasn't the feature “religion” referred to, but instead the life bound by vows.)

In fact, the Catholic Church still used the adjective and noin “religious” in that sense, while it uses “religion” in the newer modern sense; a monk or nun is a “religious", a cleric in an order is a member of the “religious clergy” while those outside of an order are members of the “secular clergy”.

[lapnitnelav]

Yeah but if you dig deeper [0], original latin word : "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion

[hndamien]

Actually, you can. There is a no dogma religion that exists for this reason (among others) because the value of religion and community of like minded individuals is recognised. However, the danger of religion is also a central tenet. Check out Yoism if you are actually interested.

[xkcd-sucks]

Have you considered "religion" as "that which gives meaning in life" rather than "the supernatural"?

[BucketSort]

1. Man is the son of an infinite source: a son of that Father not by the flesh but by the spirit.

2. Therefore man should serve that source in spirit.

3. The life of all men has a divine origin. It alone is holy.

4. Therefore man should serve that source in the life of all men. Such is the will of the Father.

5. The service of the will of that Father of life gives life.

6. Therefore the gratification of one's own will is not necessary for life.

7. Temporal life is food for the true life.

8. Therefore the true life is independent of time: it is in the present.

9. Time is an illusion of life; life in the past and in the future conceals from men the true life of the present.

10.Therefore man should strive to destroy the illusion of the temporal life of the past and future.

11.True life is life in the present, common to all men and manifesting itself in love.

12. Therefore, he who lives by love in the present, through the common life of all men, unites with the Father, the source and foundation of life.

That's Tolstoy's distillation of Jesus' teachings from "The Gospel in Brief". I have felt the same as you in the past, but when you look closely at some of these premises, they are more philosophical in nature rather than dogmatic. As a scientifically minded person, I have seen the unity of things, like in physics, where it does seem like there are some natural principles laid down. Or like in mathematics, where it seems like eternal truths are discovered, not manufactured. You can have a spiritual interpretation of this, or you can interpret it in whatever way you'd like. What I like about Tolstoy's rendering of Christ is that he basically rejects the stupid personification of God, and claims that Jesus didn't mean it that way to begin with, that the Church actually warped the teachings into a system of control.

I don't even believe Jesus was a real person, but these principles do make sense to me (at least some of it does), maybe they will make sense to you. Or maybe it's just dogma to you.