What made you believe or stop believing in your religion?
when people claim things, and are in a christian ethnic group, they tend to believe them. because otherwise they would be lying. it would be false to say that the situation didn’t occur in me, as it is simply so unlikely. none the less i find it very true, albeit not accurate.
various tails are written with dissimilar intent. some are allegorical (philosophical quandaries), some are appogetic/proslethetizing/evangelical, and the rest are existential dilemma.
the most recent one i went on i refer to as an allegorical legend. it is about neanderthals in first person, and 2 different second person paradigms. one of the second person paradigms deals with them as ‘abominable barbarians’ and vindictively wants to wipe them from the earth. the other second person paradigm, see them as ‘noble savages’. and the neanderthals themselves are very much ‘human’ in first person using simple speech (especially when dealing with humans), but have complex reasoning. the point of it is an impartisan commentary on racism. hopefully once all the edits are done people who are racist or anti-racist gain some capacity to scrutinize their reasoning. at a more meta level, it is to try getting people to stop dealing with reasoning which flips extremes.
“why why believe in ‘fiction’?” why believe in data? the issue with science and empiricism is how often data gets warped to get funding. and if either way people are buying a narrative. it might as well be one with convictions/ideals consonant with their practices.
the point of a religion is to canonize and consolidate your ideals, and bring you towards those attributes. it doesn’t matter if you are a puritan who idealizes the lack of sexuality, or an individualist who wants agency and recognition, or a humanist member of an ethnic population wanting your rite of passage (ie college or apprenticeship). every religion’s purpose is to bring people together toward some specific goal/ideal. by extension it is very difficult to drop a religion, because it is part of you. it isn’t simply a rejection of the social structure, one has to completely neutralize the idea in the ideal, or it just flips. if you are a puritan and you ‘drop’ puritanical thought, you are more likely to become hypersexual rather than the human norm, which like an addict also means you are more likely to relapse.
build up version of religion and ideology.
ideologies are single sentence structures, which have ‘consequence’ follow from this single axiom/premise.
meanwhile religions are complex rationalizations of multiple (if not multitude) ideologies. so when you are contending multiple ideas simultaneously, you are engaging in a progressively more religious considerations. and when abdicating a faith you tend to want to use another similar faith, both for purpose, and for intensity.
a religion you will go into will generally be consonant with the former interpretation of the previous faith. if you think a religion is to give you hope, and social support, but require little of you socially- because that was what your previous religion once offered. you will seek a resemblance of a return to that.
different religion roles:
- theistic/rationalizing/controling/toolish – spotlight effect
- ethnic/ entertainment/history/sociability (ie humanism) – rites of passage, language/rhetoric, shared stories/heros & allegories
- ritual – diet (eating patterns)
- economic, esteem, and identity – what you are, and why you matter.
- sensation- emotional stimulation, proclaimed preferences (ie morality), sexual roles and identity. “i feel i’m alive” or “i feel accepted”.
- logical/philosophical – a set of ideologies presumed true and sufficiently inter-compatible to consider and infer consequence. ie science, math.
- ideals, tonality, and conscience- what you feel should be or have been. using context to imply and learn a term meaning.
the more classical religions had aspects of multiple if not all religious social roles, at least for various classes, which helped the survival of the faiths.