Is life more satisfying as an atheist or religionist?

[FrustratedFool]

I imagine a sincere religionist that truly believes in their god and their religion would have the happiest of existences.  There is much comfort to be found in the promise of religion and that is why man invented it.  

The problem for me, when I was religious, was that it just wasn't believable.  At that point, going through the motions of a religion you do not believe in, it becomes an exhausting burden rather than a blessing.

I miss some of the ritual and community of religious practice but I don't miss trying to make myself believe in something unbelievable or faking my belief to fit in.  

I have found purpose within myself through a combination of Stoic and Taoist practice.

Depends upon their beliefs.  It isn't happy truly believing billions are burning in hell.

[FrustratedFool]

It is more satisfying as an atheist, no contest.

And no, it's not because I want to "sin".

Partial list of reasons:

When I accomplish something, I know it is all me who is responsible, not some god. And yes, the opposite is also true, if I fail at something, it is also all on me. But even then, I get to learn from my mistakes.

I no longer have to worry that friends and family won't be tortured for eternity for thought crimes.

I don't have to perform gold medal levels of mental gymnastics in order to try to shape reality to my irrational beliefs.

I love having an internal representation of reality, that has much better probabilities of mapping to reality, than irrational beliefs do.

As Matt Dillahunty says, "I want to have as many true beliefs, and as few false beliefs as possible". Working for that goal, is very satisfying.

True.  But I found that what these were replaced with wasn't great either:

1) I can't accept praise or blame if freewill isn't true and we live, as I think likely, in a largely deterministic universe.

2) No hell.  But no heaven either.  Just justiceless oblivion for everyone and everything.

3&4) No gymnastics, but lot's more confusion and not knowing, and a sense of it all being absurd.

Again, a very mixed bag.

[FrustratedFool]

I imagine it depends more on the person than the belief.  Religion is culturally richer.  The stories that came with my Hinduism were a lot more interesting than the somewhat sterile atheist literature.  I've begun reading the Baghavad Gita recently and finding that it has something to say to me even though I'm no longer Hindu.  And I've reanointed my Taoist studies finding much practical to be gained from Taoist practice.

Is religion culturally richer?

Lot's of secular, even atheistic, literature, music, film, art, etc.

[Ahriman]

I imagine it depends more on the person than the belief.  Religion is culturally richer.  The stories that came with my Hinduism were a lot more interesting than the somewhat sterile atheist literature.  I've begun reading the Baghavad Gita recently and finding that it has something to say to me even though I'm no longer Hindu.  And I've reanointed my Taoist studies finding much practical to be gained from Taoist practice.

Is religion culturally richer?

Lot's of secular, even atheistic, literature, music, film, art, etc.

I will say this, anime shows based on Shinto are a lot more fun to watch than the more atheistic shows.

[FrustratedFool]

And secular comedy is generally far more funny than religious humour.

[Belacqua]

Lot's of secular, even atheistic, literature, music, film, art, etc.

I'd say this is true of cultural products from our own time. Recent novels, movies, etc., are unlikely to be religious unless they're specifically aimed at that market. 

But if you want to read anything older and enduring, religion will be impossible to avoid. Like it or not, the best of the arts in Europe was Christian for a very long time. And I would hate to give up painting and sculpture or classical music from the Middle Ages to the Baroque period. Blake was a great genius, and thoroughly Christian, though in a minority tradition. The other Romantics are less explicitly Christian but wouldn't exist without that background. 

The Tale of Genji, though on the surface about nature and human relations, is soaked in Buddhism. Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan Buddhist art is wonderful. Even Proust, though very gay and sexual, could only come from a Catholic country. 

I think that a sympathetic engagement with their beliefs is only to our own benefit, because a world without all that wonderful stuff would be very poor.

[FrustratedFool]

Lot's of secular, even atheistic, literature, music, film, art, etc.

I'd say this is true of cultural products from our own time. Recent novels, movies, etc., are unlikely to be religious unless they're specifically aimed at that market. 

But if you want to read anything older and enduring, religion will be impossible to avoid. Like it or not, the best of the arts in Europe was Christian for a very long time. And I would hate to give up painting and sculpture or classical music from the Middle Ages to the Baroque period. Blake was a great genius, and thoroughly Christian, though in a minority tradition. The other Romantics are less explicitly Christian but wouldn't exist without that background. 

The Tale of Genji, though on the surface about nature and human relations, is soaked in Buddhism. Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan Buddhist art is wonderful. Even Proust, though very gay and sexual, could only come from a Catholic country. 

I think that a sympathetic engagement with their beliefs is only to our own benefit, because a world without all that wonderful stuff would be very poor.

I don't think anyone would want to get rid of works inspired by religion from the past.

My case is simply that it is highly arguable that the best cultural works are religious.  Both Shakespeare and Scorsese are secular and better than the majority of medieval Christian texts.   

Would you not count Proust as secular?  A Catholic milieu, sure, but the text itself isn't Catholic.  I would think everything not explicitly religious is secular.

[Istvan]

And secular comedy is generally far more funny than religious humour.

Generally, yeah. But I'd put Voltaire and Swift up against Tim Minchin any old day.

[FrustratedFool]

And secular comedy is generally far more funny than religious humour.

Generally, yeah. But I'd put Voltaire and Swift up against Tim Minchin any old day.

Would you count Swift and Voltaire as religious?

[Belacqua]

My case is simply that it is highly arguable that the best cultural works are religious.

I'd argue it. The majority of great cultural works in European and Asian history are religious. 

  Both Shakespeare and Scorsese are secular and better than the majority of medieval Christian texts.   

Ah, but you've put your thumb on the scale there. Shakespeare is greater than the majority of medieval Christian texts. Because the majority of any genre will be average. He's also greater than the majority of Elizabethan secular texts. But is he greater than Dante? Is he greater than Augustine's Confessions? Bach? Michelangelo? When we're talking about the real greats, it's difficult to make a confident ranking, but his peers will be nearly all religious. 

Would you not count Proust as secular?  A Catholic milieu, sure, but the text itself isn't Catholic.  I would think everything not explicitly religious is secular.

As I said, he could only have come from a Catholic culture. His book is not, itself, on the topic of religion. But to read it in a careful and sympathetic manner requires a sympathy for that culture. When he said that he wanted his novel to be a cathedral, this is not only about size and complexity. This is true for all the modern French greats -- Baudelaire, though dark and even Satanic, is rooted in Catholicism. The Decadents intentionally invert religion. Gide, Bataille, and many others, are either Catholic or working as its opposition. From that era, the only explicitly and intentionally secular movement in the arts I can think of offhand would be the Impressionists. But remember that Van Gogh only turned to painting because he failed as a preacher, and his passion for the world (it appears from his letters) is rooted in his sense of the sacred. So even the purely visual arts can't escape a base in religious history.