Religion makes sense

FortunateBum · 2014-04-24T17:13:09+00:00

I think all successful religions do three things in this order:

1) Encourage women to procreate and raise their kids

2) Encourage group cohesion and outgroup animosity

3) Encourage conversion

Religions have been evolutionarily streamlined for optimum reproduction. The religions that weren't optimal were defeated by the ones that were.

Getting maximum utility out of women's vaginas is almost a hallmark of traditional religions.

So of course religious thought and RP thought are going to overlap in places - especially for RP men who want children and families.

Traz_Onmale · 2014-04-24T18:18:16+00:00

Another way to control the excess of betas was war, so yeah.

Denswend · 2014-04-24T17:56:08+00:00

Welcome to the traditionalist/religious branch of neoreactionary thought. This is what you are closely describing. This is where you start.

You see, in order to have a stable civilization, you need to have stable agreements on certain things. You may not see it, but the entire judicial system is one huge agreement. This is something known as social contract - you will surrender a part of your freedom and in return you'll have safety. This is what Hobbes means when he says that "the state is a corporation with a monopoly on the just use of violence". Now, in order for this agreement to mean something, in order to make people willingly (otherwise there's a chance for revolution) give a part of their freedom, security that is being bought with freedom as the money, must be unquestionable. If you system can't make sure that people aren't obeying their part of the contract, then that system will fail as people will stop agreeing with it. And system without people is nothing. So there must be some metaphysical or even quantifiable value that makes people comply to their part of the agreement.

Ibn Khaldun names this "societal glue" asabiyyah or if you prefer Western terminology, solidarity. The main asabiyyah that all other asabiyyahs are derived from is unity - the notion that you're a part of something greater than yourself, and that by harming that something you will harm yourself. Unity can manifest itself as all kinds of things, it can even use it's opposite as their rallying point - "United in diversity". Some people would rather prefer to be united in unity, and those people are, well, more united. The main form of unity that trumps all other unities is the cultural one. You can have ethnical diversity, as long as you have cultural unity (Rome being the best example). You can have religious diversity, as long as you have cultural unity (Germany being the best example). You see, all other unities, are constituent part of culture, and culture can tolerate some diversity - religious/ethical/whatever. When the diversities become too much to handle, cultural unity stops. This is what happened with Rome..

When cultural unity is under strong attacks either by democratic or neoliberal capitalist systems, it will eventually fail. Because diversity is bad for a stable society. How can I make such a bold and politically incorrect statement? Because I have empirical evidence to back me up. And I know my history quite well.

Religion is just a form of metaphysical asabiyyah, as something metaphysical, it is beyond reason. It's essentially a social construct. But it's still very important.

leftajar · 2014-04-24T20:10:44+00:00

Many men are NOT natural ass-kickers. Work blows, and most of us need some incentive to suck it up.

Cue Marriage 1.0. "Do it for the kids," "Be a man," "Provide for your family."

Driven by those mantras, thousands of years' worth of betas sustained a much higher economic output than they otherwise would have. "Keep making money, and we'll guarantee you this piece of vagina for life." Pretty sweet deal for a beta!

What's the alternative? Betas become:

frustrated, angry, and most importantly dangerous.

Case in point: why is Islam so prone to suicide bombings? Simple: Islam allows polygamy. Meaning there are some males who don't get a female, ever. Suddenly 73 virgins in the afterlife sounds pretty good.

TL;DR: marriage 1.0 prevents the worst behavior in betas while encouraging them to increase their economic output "for the kids."

dray121212 · 2014-04-24T17:38:20+00:00

Females need some type of external morality and ethics placed upon them, because they lack the ability to moderate themselves based on anything but their own emotions.

To be fair, most men need this too.

30303030303030 · 2014-04-24T19:35:34+00:00

Catholic church got it right.

Man-woman marriage, no pre marriage sex make couples marry early in their twenties, lots of time for multiple pregnancies, men grow up faster because they become fathers early, no pregnancy prevention means lots of babies, keeps women busy with family and men working harder, earning more, spending more, which is good for economy. Many kids = many tax payers = good for economy.

This obviously is true for 1st world countries. Africans and Indians should stop breading, for their own sake.

You must be an idiot to fight with Catholic church. I don't go there but I support it. Only 2 happy marriages I know are between catholic couples, no zealots but they attend the mass every Sunday and every catholic holiday. I keep in touch with 1 couple and they are, after 15 years together, still happy and very much in love. The girl had only her husband inside. She doesn't believe in divorce, not that she wants one, simply not an option.

vengefully_yours · 2014-04-25T01:13:37+00:00

The only good woman I ever dated/was involved with was an arab. We were engaged but didn't get married. She married a German and lives there, but we talk often about our lives. Been friends for over twenty years, and she trusts me. Anyway, she has had a dead bedroom for almost ten years now, but she won't leave him. Even when I divorced my second wife last year, she wouldn't leave him. I make as much money as he does, so that's not an issue. Its her religious upbringing that keeps her there when any American woman would branch swing despite having sex.

BTW, I'm atheist too.

renzy77 · 2014-04-24T18:10:03+00:00

Excellent post. I had the same epiphany after swallowing the Red Pill as well. Before the Red Pill I really just viewed religion as a haphazard set of anachronistic rules that really didn't apply anymore in modern day society.

But I now "get it" when it comes to the purpose of religion - it's a series of checks and balances on the destructive parts of human behavior, and a way to channel the positive parts of human behavior into aspiring for something higher.

Progressive attitudes will undo all of this, and lead to the fall of Rome. I don't believe in religion, but I believe in what religion stands for.

Agreed.

I remember hearing a quote once that "Civilization is like a thin crust over a volcano, and liberals are constantly picking away at that crust." Religion was part of that crust, and they've been chipping away at it for decades now.

kempff · 2014-04-24T19:25:57+00:00

I'm not an atheist but I play one on TV.

For me redpill thought boils down to this one line from the Bible:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - Genesis 3:16

God rarely if ever punishes sin; rather he abandons people to the natural consequences thereof (cf. Pharaoh), yet with each impending consequence he rearranges things to manage the fallout so as to leave room for hope for the future (cf. Noah).

Here he could have summarily executed Adam and Eve for having eaten the Apple; but mercy triumphs over judgment, and he imposed a containment policy that allowed them to live out the rest of their natural lives and generate the human race.

The key part of that containment policy relevant to redpill thought is the part about "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".

Now Man, even alone in the garden without the Woman, is in the image of God and bears a relation to creation analogous to God's: he rules over creation as a rational principle cooperating with natural processes to make the universe a better place. But a man has needs, and in order to become even more like God, God made Adam a helper for the task of procreation so that Man as a species should fully dominate nature; Woman is the complementary passive principle that makes it possible for Man to carry out his mission.

But the wrench in the works was that Adam allowed himself to be seduced by his wife into disobeying God, transgressing his commandment, abandoning his principles, subverting his mission, and choosing the immediate visible good over the ultimate invisible good.

So, to prevent Woman from acting too independently, redirecting Man away from his goal, the novus ordo seclorum will have her craving her husband's leadership and operating under his authority and management. And this order allows a humane and just society to thrive in spite of creation's inexorable downward spiral that Adam's sin initiated.

Bluepill and feminist thought are essentially contraventions of that order, but I've gone on long enough.

VirgoRooster · 2014-04-25T00:50:58+00:00

On top of what you're saying and what's been said in this thread, which I completely agree with:

If you read any religious text, you realize that it is, truly, men trying to understand their place in the universe. There's a great deal of value to be found in "religious" texts (everything from the Quran to The Odyssey) IF you take them in context.

Look past the "magic" bits and you'll see the thoughts of other, mindful human beings who were trying to figure out the best way to structure a society so that they didn't have to go back to killing each other in the wilderness.

Definitely seeing things through this lens makes you that realize their intent was far less nefarious, considering the alternatives.

vaker · 2014-04-25T01:32:59+00:00

Dealing with reality (red pill) instead of progressive brainwash leads people to notice additional inconvenient truths. You just rediscovered the concept of memetic realism from Neoreaction/Dark_Enlightenment. Congratulations and welcome to the club.

Memetic Realism (“Deep Heritage”): Traditional folkways tend to be real, i.e., non-ideological, and naturally arising adaptations to social realities, which therefore represent pretty good (at least) local solutions to very (or intractably) complex problems;

Traditional religions simply codified ways of making human society work successfully. They also attempted to explain the universe in a pre-scientific era. Dropping those explanations, god(s), demons, creation, etc, leaves the working social core of the tradition. Even prayer can be viewed as an enforced mental health, meditation practice.

If you're interested in a more modern definition of irrational belief systems note that it doesn't require the existence of supernatural beings. For a definition think about the following:

a worldview not supported by science
members of the religion consider themselves superior to nonbelievers (outgroup)
imperative to proselytize, viral spreading of the meme.

On a closer look you can see that liberalism/progressivism fits this definition to a T:

Irrational belief in institutions and various equalities in spite of obvious gender and genetic differences and ample biological and statistical data proving the opposite.
Smug feeling of superiority
Dominating propaganda channels from mainstream media to academics. Zealous attacks of anybody daring to have a different view. For a recent example see the Mozilla CEO story.

throwwhatthere · 2014-04-24T19:54:24+00:00

Had a post about this on AlreadyRed the other day, reposting here FWIW:

I recently made a post reminding people of the fact that women are incapable of believing in higher principles than their feelz. I feel this is point is not given enough attention these days on TRP channels. That being said religion is the ultimate exception to this rule. I believe in many ways it can be viewed as a hack that men use to control women (for EVERYONE'S benefit). The genius of religion is that it marries a woman's feelz to a higher principle. It actually embraces irrationality and provides women with a strong man to control them, which as we know is what all women crave and need. Or to put it another way, god is the ultimate alpha male. You will never be more alpha than god. A woman who has been with god will never place you first. The best you can hope for is to be second to god, and to help her feel like she is complying with god's will. If you can place yourself between her and god, and serve as his representative to her, then she will eat out of the palm of your hand. But please do NOT try to play this game if you don't have the stomach for it. You will never out-alpha god for her affections. And honestly, it's a waste of both your time. Now, you can definitely fuck her, but please know you will only possess her body, not her mind. Any second tier male can get a romp in the sack (the woman does have physical needs) but the alpha will always own her mind. Think of a woman after god as the ultimate alpha widow.

vaker · 2014-04-24T22:00:00+00:00

another interesting bit about religion is the true reason behind the hatred of homosexuality in most ancient cultures, particularly male homosexuality. it was a grievous sin in most ancient cultures because ancient societies needed the men to look after women and beget children. if men were allowed to live a gay lifestyle, then they wouldn't produce any offspring (future fodder for war), they wouldn't marry and support any wives, and they wouldn't work as hard because they didn'r have to worry about supporting a family. this would also mean less tax revenue for the state.

allowing homosexuality in the ancient world would create a small class of unmarried childless women who needed welfare to survive and small class of underachieving gay men who only provided for themselves. families and the state did not want to provide welfare for those unmarried women for their entire lives, so homosexuality was considered a crime against society. homophobia was always intended to force men to work harder to support women and provide future soldiers and tax revenue for the crown.

of course, it was also intended to force women to marry and bear children instead of living for themselves. the image of devil-worshiping lesbian witches was spread to make women do what the state needed them to do.

religion was the best tool to enforce these laws. with religion, you don't even need to make a rational argument to convince people and control thought. you just make threats and blame all natural disasters on whatever behaviors the state doesn't like.

RedSpectrum · 2014-04-25T03:28:55+00:00

I too am a strong atheist and I got into a heated debate with another redpiller about religion and conservatism but he argued society needs religion for exactly the reasons you just wrote. Oddly, enough he too was an atheist but he saw the need for religion as a guide and to combat the far left and progressivism in Western societies

I now see what he was arguing is true to a degree.

However, on a personal level, I will disagree on a religion as a whole. It is thought control and has been that way for a long time. What better way to consolidate social influence by making everyone stay in line and obey without question?

Correct me if I'm mistaken but you do not religion in order to exert power over women by preventing them from sleeping around. Many societies, if not all, throughout history are patriarchal and many males preferred a virgin bride without evoking their faith.

My two cents.

haterandhypocrite · 2014-04-24T19:55:20+00:00

I do not understand the obsession with neoreactionary thought in so much of the manosphere. I haven't finished forming my thoughts on it yet, but I don't think I agree with much of it.

I got into a small conversation recently with a neoreactionary/monarchist type and asked him about his view on a concept that is fundamental to me: liberty. His reply required some chewing upon. He said that liberty can improve the natural tendency of people to flourish if they have demonstrated what he called "a virtuous character." In other words, liberty can be granted to those found to be worthy thereof. I don't understand how that could be considered to be anything other than a well-dressed tyranny.

A man has a certain inherent right to himself and his space, a right which does not require affirmation or gifting by any authority, great or small.

As for religion... Religion is the original hamster. It puts forward contradictory assertions about reality and tells you to forget that they aren't in line with the evidence because the framework put forward is useful in practice. Religion encourages you to be dependent, supplicating, and fearful instead of confident, self-sustaining, and in control. There is nothing good unique to religion that could not, conceivably, be accomplished through other, more logical and straightforward means. Something more consistent and less attached to the fearful infancy that man has outgrown.

tyranus89 · 2014-04-24T20:10:20+00:00

It's hard to debate that religion is used as a tool to stabilize early civilizations/societies. However, getting them to a point of organization predates organized religion. The conclusion is that there had to be some mode of rational unity amongst men.

2014-04-25T00:16:36+00:00

I'm an atheist.

I've always come to the conclusion that religion was an absolute necessity as we developed societies, as a it created the basis of law and order that was more effective than Hammurabi's Code of "an eye for an eye". However, I think that as we become more and more developed, we should drop it in favor of ideologies that make more sense so we don't have to pretend that there's a magic man that watches over everything.

I'd be curious to see if there would be a way to implement some of the teachings of religion into society without having to put up with the dogma of it. This post made a hell of a lot of sense. I wish we'd be able to explain why certain restrictions were necessary for a functioning society without having to disguise it as the will of a magical man.

FLFTW16 · 2014-04-25T02:54:32+00:00

I'd be curious to see what other atheists make of this.

I've been raised Catholic, became an atheist in college, then a Buddhist, now I am just apathetic. But coming full circle I appreciate my Catholic upbringing more and more the older I become.

I'd say the fundamental shift in paradigm has to do with understanding human nature. Old world religions, the big 3 at least, view humans as naturally sinful. The Old Testament gives us the story of the great flood. Humanity was basically a cesspool of selfishness. We were 3 hairs away from the apes. Almost no ability to reason. Rape, murder, war were endemic. Humans were BAD and needed to be controlled. Religion was the method for controlling and guiding humans throughout their lives. The Sacraments of the Catholic church are ingrained rituals that are experienced throughout life. At every milestone from birth to marriage to death, the church was there to teach, mentor, prepare, guide, and counsel its "flock." A vital part of this was to control access to sex through marriage. One man + one woman virginal marriage is the best way to keep civilization humming along nice and smoothly. Control of female sexuality allows for control of male resources, children are more likely than not to have parents raising them and keeping them loyal to the church. The circle of life continues.

The modern shift in paradigm no longer sees humans as naturally evil or sinful or weak. The liberal 21st century paradigm is that humans are basically good and just need to be properly educated. Morality is decoupled from religion. Sexuality is unleashed entirely with no counterweight to slow it down. People are encouraged to be "sex positive" and try and "experience" things. Fatherhood is seen as irrelevant. Men are increasingly seen as irrelevant or even a burden, and now boys are seen as troublesome or incapable of control in the classroom--they can't help it, after all they will grow up to be irrelevant men. Of course even though sexuality was liberated for women, it means sexuality was tainted or ruined for men. No more virginal brides. No more guidance and control from the Church from birth until death. No counterweight. Since the Church is no longer in the spotlight at all we see new movements sprouting up to fill the void. Conservative/identity politics is one way the older generation is rebelling against the current status quo. TRP might be another example. The point is that unrestrained sexuality is detrimental to half of society, so that half will form some reaction. The liberal paradigm that "people are generally good" is widely rejected by men over 30. The older men get, the more wise they become to the world and they realize how power structures work, who gets access to sex and how, who reproduces and who doesn't, who is in control and who isn't, etc.

tl;dr: the Church once restrained humans and made sure the goodies of society (sex and reproduction) were distributed as fairly and evenly as possible. Now that the church is irrelevant, control of sex has been given up and new structures are being created to react to the ensuing chaos.

2014-04-26T11:44:39+00:00

Just to add my two cents. I consistently hear "athiests believe nothing happened to nothing and then something happened LOLOLLOLLLzers."

Then you ask "Well.. what created God?" "YOU CANNOT FATHOM BEFORE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SIN!!!!!!"""

Ok.. I'm crazy believing "nothing happened to nothing", but no background check on a deity is perfectly acceptable. You go Glenn CoCo

SlickJamesBitch · 2014-04-24T19:18:39+00:00

Chistianisty and Islams core is submission, God is a Dom. It's sacrifice of life now for a masturbatory fantasy, church is like jerking off your soul. Men do not need religion, we are our own Gods. Studies show once a woman has sex and she was previously religious she buts her religion on the back-burner, why, because men and God are no different.

Revarent · 2014-04-25T15:12:08+00:00

It's great to see men who are smart enough not to be religious but still understand why it exists beyond "I wanna believe in the man in the sky criticisms". To be completely dismissive of it is to deny a vital part of humanity and its social evolution.

Religion is a tool. It has been a very effective one for thousands of years. Each of them have a core of truth and bits and pieces of value. Just have to know how to think about it.

mbillion · 2014-04-24T22:09:22+00:00

Sorry guys, but (for now, at least) you're not gonna get what you want.

For the very simple reason that religion does not exist in a vacuum. It comes in a package - a package that ultimately boils down to FEAR.

That's right - when foragers had to become farmers, they had to learn to live in constant fear. Since basic human hipocrisy doesn't permit saying that sort of thing out loud, they invented (unconsciously, of course) all sort of reasons to justify that fear - such as vengeful gods who take a keen interest in your sex life.

Now that increases in productivity have largely removed fear, people have gone back to reckless (from a farmer's point of view) forager ways - because that's what comes naturally to humans.

You can't turn back time. The only way to get what you want is a return to subsistence.

harkrank · 2014-04-24T19:33:23+00:00

A society would expand by reproduction and the individuals were connected by blood. The limit to a society's expansion lies in the reproduction rate, but it is exponential. That means as societies compete, the largest society will outgrow the others faster and there is nothing to make the reproduction rate faster as it is limited by puberty. War is no good solution since the largest army usually wins the battle and technologies and strategies are quickly adapted by rivaling societies.

Organized religion allows a society to grow faster than the rate of reproduction allows since by conversion you can include people who are not blood-related to your group. This is why organized religion became so powerful, it was needed for a civilization to survive the competition. This is also why organized religion was totalitarian, it was needed to maintain society and in competition with blood allegiance.

After the industrial revolution production effectivity became much more important than the amount of soldiers you could amass, therefore organized religion was abandoned and exists as a mere shadow today. The state has replaced a God as object of worship, devotion and mortal fear. Power struggles have moved into obscurity as the population live in blindness, conditioned to be unaware and ignorant.

johnmars3 · 2014-04-25T05:00:17+00:00

Thank you TRP for a very informative thread.

F@ck University, I have learned more on this subject from this thread, than in my 40 years on Earth.

bigyellowtwinki · 2014-04-25T05:38:25+00:00

You're also forgetting that before modern medicine women could, and often did, die giving childbirth. It was deadly to be promiscuous, and societies needed to develop a way to protect their populations, so virginity became a virtue. Old civilizations would also make eunuchs out of their extra males, especially in polygamous cultures. It's kind of funny how nothing seems to change, our gammas and betas are self-made eunuchs and our polygamous alphas don't marry the "wives" (plates) but pass them onto the beta-eunuchs to provide.

FrostyGoingHisOwnWay · 2014-04-25T08:52:44+00:00

I'm close to agreeing with you, but not quite.

Successful societies allow more people to thrive by controlling the worst behaviours in humans, and by favouring the middle at the expense of the top.

To me, this has a sort of "we're successful, and this is how our modern society is formed, ergo success looks like this" feel to it, which as a libertarian I strongly disagree with. Our modern society which is becoming ever more leftist is for sure moving towards this model but it doesn't mean we have achieved success, in fact we more growth and happiness during the capitalistic industrial revolution, there's a lot of signs that this leftist behavior where the needs of the poor are met by the rich may not last.

I'd like to throw out a candidate for a definition of a "good society" which should include the society being more productive than the sum of its parts, specializiation is key, a tribe of 500 people who all specialize into their own field and then trade goods between them peacefully are stronger and more capable of protecting their future generations than a tribe of 500 people who all try and do everyting by themselves and are bad at all of those things.

Allowing betas a chance at marriage and procreation prevents them from becoming frustrated, angry, and most importantly dangerous.

This is just down to biology, in humans we have a very long pregnancy time where the woman is weak and unable to be very productive, she's also vulnerable. Children are not born fully developed they require a good 4 years protection from their mother, breast feeding etc, and then don't become productive and able to fend for themselves, or able to even reproduce until about 13-15 years old.

Evolution, the practice of passing on your traits is not just about passing on your genetic material, it's about bringing offspring to an age where they're likely to reproduce, otherwise you're a genetic dead end. Which is why evolution has favoured traits that cause long term bonding between the father and mother because successfully raising a child is infinitely more successful as a family unit.

Religion is partly just a societal expression of that, a naive attempt to understand the bonding mechanics between humans and codify it.

I think you have the cause and effect backwards, religion doesn't cause the family unit, it's an expression of a biological reality that humans are stuck with. Beta men aren't "allowed" marriage and procreation, they get it because typically it's good strategy to form a family unit and for the male to help protect the growth of the child, that pair bonding means generally speaking you get a 1:1 man to woman pair up, 10's look for 10's, 9's look for 9's , etc, because people would rather raise a child with someone with less value than is ideal than not do it at all.

The "top 20% of males" could sleep around as much as they wanted back in the day and then simply fuck off else where, but a single "average" male who stuck by his single offspring to protect and raise it has a much greater chance of his genes surviving than 20 abandoned females left to fend for themselves during their weakest and most vulnerable point in their lives.

Like you I'm an atheist, I don't believe religion is a force for good in the world, It's my opinion that religion is just a placeholder for a society to help cope with things they don't understand, it primarily offers comfort in the absence of the ability to understand your surroundings, it may even be a necessary part of successfully transitioning from a biologically ruled society into a intellectual one. But I just don't think the family unit was a creation of religion, that a clear creation of evolution.

Very interesting discussion though.

ur2l8 · 2014-04-25T16:02:09+00:00

Everything you summed up has already been layed out in anthropology. As a Catholic, I obviously believe there is more to it than this--the evidence you and others have presented only further corroborates my beliefs.

TRPsubmitter · 2014-04-24T18:49:58+00:00

Pacification has always been a function of religion. It's how the catholic church ruled europe de facto for centuries.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" as it goes.

Cosmicandy · 2014-04-24T18:02:31+00:00

Where does the refusal to eat pork and wear mixed fabrics in clothing come into all this?

In all seriousness, even though I don't believe in any deity, I wonder if religion is "worth it". Sure, it does a good job of making a cohesive productive society, but it also makes us irrationally angry and dangerous over both scientific discovery AND trivial nonsense like mixed fabrics in clothing.

mbillion · 2014-04-24T23:26:03+00:00

I am an a bonafide atheist. I see no problem with this. So long as you really do not believe that there is an invisible friend who absolves all wrong you do I am ok with it.

The fact is - not killing people, robbing your neighbors, and controlling societal interaction is what the cultural elite do in every culture

So the game is played. If you want success you need to realize it and use it to your favor

carrotplanter · 2014-04-24T23:54:51+00:00

I stopped calling myself an atheist about a couple of years ago and even drifted away from the local atheist movement after getting involved in it for a while. It was miserable, the lot of them losers and beta fucks craved for attention while decrying the perceived sad state of affairs going on in the lives of overtly religious people (who were leading happy lives for the most part, by the way). But I'm still a firm non-believer, only now that I've really come to terms with TRP, I've begun to start looking back into religion and religious texts, mainly because a lot of red pill theory proves much of its tenets right.

I still haven't got the time to spend thinking about this subject fully, so thanks for posting this. I agree that religion really plays a huge role in the thought control of the masses, and now that I think of it, there's just very little chance that society can progress any faster in terms of de-converting people from their religions; it's like /u/Whisper said in his analogy about culture. Religious culture and red pill theory can work hand in hand. Until atheists and other non-believers can come up with a better plan for controlling the thoughts and behaviour of the masses, I'd rather leave the system that's already in place than break it down and see utter chaos unfold.

Side note: anyone else in the process of reconciling their own thoughts about red pill theory and the basis/core tenets of most religions?

w0nkeyd0nkey · 2014-04-24T19:50:13+00:00

I agree with you. the benefits of religion you listed and to have faith in any religion are not mutually exclusive though

I see religion as the absence of knowledge hence the required "faith". religion was the first attempt to explain EVERYTHING and that is why so many people still adopt it, as it has all the answers, or so it seems.

However we never grew out of this stage until science ad free thinking really picked up momentum. It was inevitable that it was going to create a decent system for social/economic control considering the whole populous was operating under religion. What im trying to say is that a society developed through knowledge would probably create better and more efficient systems than religion could of ever done, but due to religion having control over so much of early humanity we have nothing to compare and relate it to. how do we know those systems wouldn't have been created in a world with no concept of religion.

TL DR... it may have been coincidence, we will never know.

emptyform · 2014-04-24T22:13:23+00:00

Came to the same conclusions, OP. Raised a Christian, now something of a Zen student, as in distinctly-not-Buddhist believer that everything is sort of bullshit. I've been looking into potential religious communities, and the Unitarian Univeralists are promising, as they are something like positively-driven organized religion, without the dogma of any religions. The couple of services I went to in my area were a littttttttle too similar to my Protestant upbringing, but for finding a quality woman and being part of a tolerable religious community it might be the best option one day, as a typical big UU congregation is full of atheists, Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims who don't care for dogma.

redpillshadow · 2014-04-24T21:35:45+00:00

Not anymore.

Religion was a quick and ugly fix to a complicated problem. How to get a stable, successful working society going relatively smooth.

For that to happen the people need to agree on morals, rules and limits to freedom. Religion achieves that agreement via lies and fear. And thus needs additional cuts into freedom so these lies and the terror aren't the downfall of the society. Religion stands for the control, religion doesn't stand for the morals, do not confuse them.

We are in the age of enlightenment and information highways. Keeping religion up would require crass cuts into that. Up to a point where we are very effectively blocking the betterment of society just for the sake of having a society. Some of the smartest and most productive men would put all their effort in bringing religion down. Religion is just not a valid answer anymore to the challenge we are facing nowadays in building and maintaining a society.

culofiesta · 2014-04-24T19:41:17+00:00

The show Gigolos is a great example of this. In the last season a new gigolo from Tennessee started on the show. He has some trouble with his family that want him to come back home and have a family. Eventually his brother comes to visit him in Vegas and is told the truth that he's a gigolo.

Younger brother is an unattractive schlub while his brother (Bradley) is scoring with lots of women and getting paid for it. He lives a life of luxury while his brother just reminds him of the church and what's expected of him. Bradley is one of those people that will always get women and have everything he wants but his fat brother has to bring him down because we can't have men out there leading such a wonderful life, can we?

jonforthewin · 2014-04-24T22:47:31+00:00

OP, you should read Sodom & Gamora. The nuclear family (and similar family models) is the foundation of civilization.

Separate thought:

When I was a teenager I thought I was an atheist. A few experiences (speaking to a lot of DMT users, and people who had NDEs) led me to agnosticism, then after discovering the Electric Universe and looking at the mountain of collective ancient testimony of past events I know there "is God".

major_tom38 · 2014-04-25T00:03:49+00:00

I've long suspected that religion was spread by incel monks to kill hypergamy.

xantris · 2014-04-25T03:08:01+00:00

Fellow atheist here.

Do I believe religion leads to a more stable family unit and gender roles? Yes. However, I think you greatly overestimate how important that is in modern society.

You have little need to look further than the current spread of countries to see that religion has a net negative affect in modern society. It inhibits free thinking, intellectual pursuits, and innovation. The Middle east, South America, Africa, and many of the less enviable south Pacific nations are all heavily religious. They are also some of the worse places on the planet to live.

Even the United States, which is quite religious for a 1st world country, is starting to fall (far) behind in quality of life and education compared to less religious countries. Quality of life is dominated by nonreligious countries, and I don't think thats a coincidence.

I'm far more concerned about religious zealotry destroying the world than some dude not getting any ass. Hell it won't be long and he'll be able to get all the virtual/robot pussy he wants, meanwhile the religious zealots will still be crazy as fuck and they'll just have access to more and dangerous weapons.

Slutlord-Fascist · 2014-04-24T22:01:05+00:00

This is an ignorant shitpost, and normally I wouldn't bother refuting it, but I'm going to so that perhaps a few ardent redpillers aren't lead astray. As a Protestant, I can tell you that you misunderstand a lot of the core ideas about religious conservatism and cultural roots.

Your statement that patriarchal societies control women's sexuality so that "betas" have a chance at sex is wrongheaded post hoc reasoning. It's nonsense. While patriarchal society ensures male-female pairing, patriarchal society encourages the health and existence of the community as a whole.

Patriarchal societies control sexuality because it prevents illegitimate children from burdening the rest of society. Currently, in a post-feminist America, women are empowered to be single mothers. Their children are poorly-behaved and emotionally unstable, liable to become criminals, and a cost to taxpayers. Aside from that, children raised in single parent homes are less likely to create stable families in the future, which means that there is less chance of the overall society remaining intact.

With regard to contraception, it isn't about female sexuality as it is the purpose of procreation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Until very recently, sexual activity without the purpose of procreation was frowned upon in the Christian church.

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

Proud2BGay · 2014-04-24T21:30:44+00:00

Patton Oswalt has a piece regarding this as well. Link

edit: Didn't see this was already posted here, my mistake

vaker · 2014-04-25T01:08:14+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Title	Religion makes sense
Author	Cyralea
Upvotes	151
Comments	217
Date	April 24, 2014 5:03 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/23vgp1/religion_makes_sense/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/religion-makes-sense.14542 https://theredarchive.com/post/14542

Comments