bernie43

Yoism? Satirical religions?

There are too many of them for lazy me to keep in mind.

Maybe Yoism isn't entirely only for fun but it looks like it for me. And The Invisiable Pink Something is a very serious joke too. And many others.

The interesting thing about Yoism is that it is Open Source so maybe changeable depending on those participating.

what I wonder about is if these comic or satirical or ironic chruches really would work? What is needed for something to work as a religion?

Humanism as a religious worldview don't seem to work. It doesn't grow as far as I know. Fundamentalism does grow. The whole world has become more fundie by every decade despite secularization being more known.

One explanation would be that they are more effective in making people motivated to spend time to serve their faith. That would also explain why extreme Libertarianism, FreeMarketLiberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Feminism, Veganism, AnimalRightism and all such we are righteous faiths works for the believers in them.

It works cause they are Righteous.
# Morally upright; without guilt or sin
# In accordance with virtue or morality
# Morally justifiable: righteous anger.

that is what they have in common with fundamental religiousity while the non-literal religions get weaker and weaker.

I look for a worldview that is not "righteous" to belong to. I was a righteous atheist between 1953 to 1983 about. Ok maybe even up to 1996. But my change started 1983.

I think to be righteous is not a good thing. I know it feels good though. That is why it is soo effective. Instant gratification. Very positive feedback.

That is why we or at least I need a defendable worldview.

drewjmore

Please elaborate on these two terms: righteous & defendable. If I follow the meanings in context, 'righteous' has connotations of being inflexible and hypocritical while 'defendable' implies being correct, compassionate and inclusive. Is righteousness defendable, or not? If you dispose of 'r,' why do you still need 'd'?

Into what sort of atheist have you developed? (Since you are no longer a 'righteous' one.)

Splarnst

Why exactly doesn't Humanism work as a worldview?

bernie43

Is righteousness defendable?

Not to me.

I am bad at writing, I try to give a better answer within two days. Need to sleep now. It-s 23.43 here local time an I have to give back CD records to the library easly next morning. So I get back in hopefully 18 hours of so 19.45 our local time Wednesday.

bernie43

My main OP? is about finding a defendable world view.

As an atheist I obviously fail to support a religious tradition intellectually.

so I looked for alternatives that are secular, naturalistic, and happen to hit upon such as Yoism, Church of Reality, IPU, and such.

But all of them seem more like humerous and some even faking as an ironic commentary and humor is fun but not dead serious? kind of. I'm dead serious maybe so I am not so funny. Most likely I will die within 5 to 25 years, and why should we who have a naturalistic view be less cared for than the religious.

The righteousness thingy me are critical about was from my own experience of from more than twenty years of me feeling innocently righteous about my atheism. Sure not all atheists are like that but many are.

It is not an intellectually defendable way fo life to be righteous.

If things goes wrong then any view that see itself as more right than the one seen as more wrong see itself more likely as innocent.

innocent

Free from evil and corruption:
Free from guilt or blame:
# Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law:
# Devoid of hurtful qualities:
Free from guile, cunning, or deceit:

Many views behave that way. Knowing them to get it right become righteous about it and feel innocent whatever they do.

But that is kind of Off Topic here cause the main thing is to find something that is defendable from an intellectual perspective.

Naturalism is defendable but seems totally unabale to gather people.

Therefor my naive question. Are Yoism and other such views less academic or why do they seem to work better than Naturalism to get supporters.

Is it the imaginative touch that makes it likeable?

Have to run now.

EverLastingGodStopper

Satirical religions are fun to follow. I'm a proud Pastafarian, for example. Obviously, a parody religion is not a replacement for an actual worldview.

Since I am content with calling myself an atheist, I don't see a need for another label or description of my personal philosophy. I'm quite happy with all the labels used to describe nontheism.

My participation in parody religions such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is for fun and comeraderie with likeminded people (in the case of the FSM, people who are opposed to the teaching of "intelligent design doctrine" in public schools). Yarr, we get to talk like pirates, and make nonstop references to sauce and balls. FSM religion offers a heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory. What's not to love?

I imagine that a parody religion is not a good substitute for someone seeking a naturalist- or Humanist-oriented philosophy without the naturalism or Humanism. Parody religions are for fun, not for real.

bernie43

ELGS, well put. I lack the skill in using english to get through.

You and I are just two out of some 30.000.000 potential non-theists in US alone. Add all of us living in other countries. So I still look for the real thing. You don't have to but you could help all of us who do have that need.

I refered to Yoism cause it challenged your Fun Religion the SpagettiMonster or the IPU variant.

What I liked about Yoism is the OpenSource thingy. Such could be very inspiring to peopel with a great imagination and artful creativity. We have the Chuch of Reality too in the same league I guess. Fun to participate in and only half serious if I get their drift.

What could we learn from this. Humor is a great positive force?

Take Dan Brown and the Mary Magdalene conspiracy of the Graal of Jesus being his children with her and Catholiscism as the great enemy. Very fun to read indeed. One almost wanted it to be true to make the faces of the Pope to looking red out of embarrassement.

So what would work. To ape after the fundies is a no-no. we have to be decent and reliable and trustworthy.

Us being true to reality? Or should we make some kind of imaginative set up that openly tell it like it is. A made up allegory that has the function to gather secular people to something to rejoice in.

Would it fail or would it work?

It surely would fail here in IIDB but we who are active here are a very small subset of all atheists. Very few of the atheists out there are active here.

So it would be wrong of us to dizz everything just because it doesn't live up to our own fancy.

bernie43

Take this very serious effort.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=86432
The Human Faith Project of J. Calvin Chatlos

I came upon this text in North American Council for Humanism (NACH)
at url http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/chatlos.html

even his project failed here at IIDB, show that we are a very special subset of all atheists.

EverLastingGodStopper

The IIDB is just a discussion board community. To accomplish a goal in real life, you have to practice it in real-world groups and communities. Don't be disheartened by lack of participation of message board users in organized "atheist" projects. Atheism is as relevant as eye color, as far as rallying around a cause goes.

PaperCut

The book Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer, has some interesting answers to these questions. It also has a section on fundamentalism.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...47939?v=glance

These are all temporary patterns and fundamentalism will eventually stop to grow at some point and even decline. Currently, the interfaith violence and terrorism is spreading the them-against-us mentality, which plays so, so well into the hands of ultra nationalists and religious fundamentalists.

Advances in transportation and telecommunication technologies are making the world increasingly smaller and as a result different faiths are stepping on each other toes with more frequency which is causing more violence and fundamentalism. When we learn to live with each other in pluralistic societies, fundamentalism will begin to subside. I'm convinced it’s only a matter of time before we get there.

I believe that's a wise choice, because if history's any guide, as we explore the universe we will come across surprising discoveries which will force everyone, theist and atheist alike, to revise their worldviews. However, righteous people will have a much harder time to justify altering their beliefs without looking like fools.


P.