150
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
150 points (99.3% liked)
World News
2466 readers
986 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think most people who say this only have experience with Abrahamism and make sweeping generalisations about it. At best, people have read some European history, but that's still a very biased sample.
Nope. I mean all theistic beliefs. I became an anti-theist after many years of being a deist. I am familiar with at least one non-Abrahamic theistic belief (deism). And I know a little about others.
But there is no exceptional theism that will ever justify the belief in god(s). We can't know if god(s) exist. They likely don't, but that cannot be proven right or wrong, so we should adopt the default position: "we don't know". Believing in a consequential claim with no evidence is a great way to believe in harmful lies.
Shaping your identity, ethics, or other major facets about who you are around the (very likely untrue) unfalsifiable belief in god(s) is a dangerous thing to do. If you're willing to believe such a consequential and unfalsifiable claim, your theism can be used to justify any harmful beliefs.
Beliefs influence actions, and actions have consequences. That doesn't change just because your preferred god(s) are different than the Abrahamic one.
It's an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies. Whether the lies are helpful or not depends on the intention and competence of those who made them up. I fully support believing in lies that help society and make our lives happier.
I view religions as ways to make ideas easier to understand. They're a form of data compression for human thoughts, that makes them easier to remember and to transmit. A JPEG is a "lie" because it's lossy compression. It creates visual artefacts that aren't in the original. But those artefacts are byproducts of a process that makes images smaller and easier to store on old hardware.
So if you want a culture that practices complex systems of politics and ethics and science for many many generations, you better have a great compression algorithm. Like a religion. With intelligent design of faith, religion can be a "lie" that makes a society healthy, strong, and nice to live in.
So that's My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good. I don't believe in objective truth, I think everything humans have yet gained the ability to know is some flavour of inaccurate. Best to choose helpful inaccuracies instead of harmful ones.
That was addressed in my other comment. And if you believe that the reasons for doing good things in the world are "beneficial lies", I'd say that's another issue with theism warping your view of reality. You don't need "beneficial lies" to do good in the world. You merely need the desire and ability to do good -- neither of which require theism. But the lies that people are influenced by will contribute to harmful beliefs and actions, which is the main problem with theism.
I am not appealing to an "objective truth". I'm appealing against the solopsism and nihilism required to believe something you know is unfalsifiable. If you can't know something is true, be honest with yourself and others. Your position on the matter should be "it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know". Not, "I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable".
I think I do. I don't believe in absolute truth. I think we can only ever choose which lies to believe in.
Good lies, designed competently by well-meaning leaders, will make the world better.
You don't need to believe in an "absolute truth". But you shouldn't adopt an affirmative belief in things that you know cannot be proven or disproven. The only honest answer to such a matter -- a belief in god(s) -- is: “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”; not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”. The latter is harmful.
The existence of an external world beyond our senses can't be proven or disproven. You could have been deceived by an evil demon's illusions. You can't verify the accuracy of your senses using your senses, because that's circular reasoning.
You and I both have no choice but to believe in an unfalsifiable external world. Because the only alternative is solipsism, and neither of us is considering that one.
Thus, everything we can ever know is built on a foundation of lies.
What you're doing is solopsism. You're adopting affirmative beliefs in things you know can't be proven true out of the fear that if you don't, nothing but your own experience can be real. God(s) do not need to exist for things outside your own experience to be real. If you believe otherwise, you are being solopsistic.
I'm a soulist, not a solipsist. Solipsism is passive. Solipsists can't do anything with faith that it will make the world a better place. Soulists can do more than realists can, because of our faith. https://soulism.net/
You can call yourself whatever you like, but what you are doing is solopsistic.
And what you're doing is ignorant, unintentional faith. The worst characteristics of religion. You can't see past this all-powerful "real world" you've been taught to believe in, because you've built your entire identity around it.
Did you not read this?
Or this?
I had a theistic worldview, just like you. It is not for a lack of experience or consideration that I became an anti-theist. Nor am I appealing to some all-encompassing, all-explaining Truth (or "real world" as you put it); that is what theists do.
Which makes what you said:
feel a lot more like projection than engaging in a critical discussion.
Religion is a manmade technology that is useful as hell when it comes to keeping existential dread at bay long enough to procreate
It does a lot more than that. In Australia, it's been used to prevent violence, maintain the environment, and aid in resource use for thousands of years.
Theistic beliefs are a terrible way to determine what is true, especially when theism is not only simultaneously used to justify harm (bigotry, supremacy, exploitation), but also unnecessary for achieving caring about justice (rights, environmental conservation, veganism, anti-capitalism, etc.).
Do some theists end up doing and believing progressive and beneficial things? Yes, but a house built on a weak foundation can fall apart much more easily than one built on a solid one. You should do good in the world because that is the kind of person you want to be, not because of a (very likely untrue) belief you adopted that cannot be falsified.
I just feel like taking this stance a little too hard makes philosophy = bad. There is a difference when beliefs conflict with being just, I agree. But good religion is built on deep conviction, in my mind, and approaches a sort of chicken-or-the-egg relationship with truly righteous acts.
I'd say it's pretty bleedin' obvious that the house with the strongest foundation is the world's oldest living cultural group: Aboriginal Australians. Obviously, belief in the Rainbow Serpent has greatly benefitted their ancient nations. They preserved knowledge of the sea level rise at the end of the ice age through 10,000 years, that's the best history-keeping in the world. I'd say Aboriginal religions are carefully calibrated machines of political technology, creating good societies through social engineering.
The results speak for themselves: Believing in the Rainbow Serpent is the right thing to do, because it makes the world a better place. So I believe.
I didn't know that about Aboriginal religion, but I have heard of some heady, trance monk type practices (like near interdimensional transcendence stuff) which I appreciate. Can't remember if it involved straight up psychedelics or just meditation, which is always mindblowing to me.
Something about all these first peoples, man, they really knew how to weave a mythos between the world and ourselves on every level.
It's because of thousands of years of practice!
The geopolitical west is so politically unstable, they can't develop their myths properly. Every few hundred years, it's another cultural revolution with them! With all that turmoil, it's no wonder their cultural development is so stunted.
I think with the help of science, we can develop cultures fast enough to keep up with modern life. But not the west's modern science. We need some more advanced psychology, like what the First Australians have.