[nonotreally]

That's a lie that religions keep perpetuating. Many social groups exist that are just as fulfilling.

My gym for example is full of people who actively work in the community, help each other and gather multiple times per week to better themselves and encourage their community.

Religion has nothing to offer that secular society cannot offer.

It does offer a lot of downsides though.

[dagw]

Religion has nothing to offer that secular society cannot offer.

While this might be true in theory, I have not found it true in practice. I am no longer religious and I have not attended church for 20+ years, but despite trying many of these secular 'alternatives' to church I have yet to find anything as open, welcoming and socially supportive as I found church.

edit: Yes, I know this isn't everybody's experience, and yes some churches can be extremely bigoted, exclusionary and downright evil to people they perceive as 'others'.

[randcraw]

What you say about churches being welcoming agrees with my experiences too, from what I've seen of others, given that I don't attend. But I think faith is only part of the reason for attending.

Essential in the choice to join a church is the desire to seek out a kind of 'marriage', where for better and worse, you promise to look out for others in an extended family and to help them when they need you. That sense of belonging is one of the big things that brings everyone in a church together -- the wish to be part of a community that regularly joins together and where you can share your life with others.

Membership in a social club can't do that.

[dragonwriter]

> Membership in a social club can't do that.

As someone who has been involved in both Churches, Church-associated social clubs, and no -Church social clubs, yes, it absolutely can; in fact, what you describe is explicitly part of the concept of many non-Church social clubs, some of which evolved from (or in the tradition of) organizations which started as sub-church organizations within churches by which this function was more tightly expressed for members than in the broader church.

But even where it isn't explicitly part of the deal, it's very common to evolve as an implicit part of a social club.

[nonotreally]

In the strongest possible terms, I reject this entirely.

I'm trying to put into words how much I disagree and why, but I'm failing. Others have done a better job than I can.

I can only recommend you read the strong counter opinions to your position.

I wish you well. But I wont participate in these groups.

[randcraw]

Do you imagine that one of the social groups you belong to would willingly play the role in your life that church members often do? Would someone from one of your groups:

- drive you to a doctor appointment?

- repair your house when you can't (perhaps due to injury)?

- take you in for a few days after a crisis at home?

- prepare a week of meals for you, if needed?

These are fairly commonplace roles that I've seen filled routinely by members of a church that I've seldom seen arise from other social networks. And never from a health club.

I don't attend church but I've regularly seen this kind of extended community in others who do. The role churches play of an extended family is incomparable to any other social network I know. This degree of compassion and service to non-family members seems to require a greater common bond than just sweating together.

[nonotreally]

Yes to all of this. I have either participated in or can think of examples of all of these examples from this gym group.

People are people. We don't need gods to make us care about each other.

[danans]

> Religion has nothing to offer that secular society cannot offer.

Similar to ethnic nationalism, it can and throughout history has provided the glue that holds groups together when they are in conflicts with other groups.

Unlike a secular club, religion cements this power inter-generationally by insinuating itself into the key human institutions of marriage, reproduction, child rearing, and membership in the religion. If you look at any ethno-religious state in the world (i.e. many middle eastern countries), they function this way.

The experiment of a secular national identity (based on shared beliefs about people's rights and dignity) is the only institution that can effectively fulfill this aspect of religion, but as we are now seeing, it can also stumble if it doesn't tend to the needs of its constituents well enough.

[nonotreally]

I accept this.

But I don't actually see how that is different than religion. Religions have failed many times throughout history.

Modern society has been working well enough for a while now. How long do we have to do it before we can ditch these superstitions?

[danans]

Religion, tribe, and ethnicity are all backup plans for if/when the protections given by modern society fail.