A religion that is not bad.

[Diederick]

This is posted in the DIR forum of Secular Beliefs, under Atheism 2. So don't come here flaming me for saying what I'm about to say because it doesn't coincide with your religious beliefs. Leave your faith at the door, please.

I would like to throw a proposition out here for you all to comment on. This is not about my beliefs, and the proposition is posed in the theme of Atheism, so please try to not discuss the relevance of Atheism.

Now, I am a firm disbeliever, an anti-theist. I don't believe in 'God' and would find it most uncomfortable if there was a God, or if I would be lead to believe there was one. This is all inspired by what the mainstream believers fling my way, which are predominantly Christians or Muslims. Most religion I see is Abrahamic, I come across other religions, but they almost seem to misfit the definition I have established of 'religion'. I can't know God is real, because there is no evidence for it, and because the most popular image of God, is incompatible with all that I do hold to be true - among which logic and common scientific facts.

But, my anti-theism comes from the image of God that is not directly painted by its believers, but by the results of their actions. I'm a softy, I care a lot for other people and it seems to hurt me more to see others in pain, than it would if I were the one suffering. Such 'results' of religious inspired action, are what I hate about religion. And I think "hate" is the perfect word for it, because nothing in this world that is under our control, has made an excuse for more suffering, than religion has. I hate it, because we control it, but have done nothing for so long to stop its vices. I, like most of the civilized world, have witnessed the agony laid upon homosexual men (and women), their persecutions, their suicides and their murders. There are millions of people who suffer as a scapegoat of religious mobs, worldwide. Women who are handled in a most gruesome manner, circumcised, beaten, raped, stoned, exploited, sold; all because there is an excuse for it to be found in (a) religion. Children neglected, abused, killed or cast away. Animals abused or slaughtered for spiritual means. Buildings flown into because of a religious disagreement. Millions - if not billions - slaughtered, for upholding a different delusion than others. Countries overrun for a 'Holy' purpose. Not to mention how religion keeps most of this world in its grasp, preventing many people from realizing that we're in this thing [read: life on earth] together and ought to make the best of it - for everyone.

It is no doubt that religion has created a very grim name for itself. But still, it persists, in the face of all we humans claim to be. Intellectuals. Yet it is still here. It so appears some people are fond of it. Even people who don't believe in it, tend to want to protect it. Some seem to need some reassurance, a veil that will hide the harsh truths of this world. Regardless of the exact reasons why it is still here, I would like to pose the following:

If it were at hand to create a new religion that everyone in apparent need of such would suddenly succumb to, would it be possible to make (it) a religion that would not be objectionable?

It would have to be a religion which doesn't claim to know the absolute truth, which doesn't force itself unto others, which doesn't persecute anyone, which doesn't belittle mankind's potential in progression, which doesn't hang young homosexual boys and which somehow still keeps people comfortably numb - the actual purpose of this psychological placebo. So a religion that still 'works', but which doesn't have any negatives.

 

[Diederick]

My answer to this would be Existentialism, a philosophy which has its roots in Nihilism and which strives for individualism. However, it doesn't give what most people seem to want, and it takes a good deal of contemplating and brain power - or a lot of education - to establish it. So it wouldn't work for the average religionist. Let alone not being a religion at all, since it could very well do without any Deity.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

the draw for religion and particularly it's psychological placebo effect is all stemmed in knowing absolute truth. without a grasp on absolute truth the numbing affect isn't there because if there is a shred of doubt then the nervous fear of the unknown is there. and holding absolute truth will always lead to evangelism, and evangelism is simply what persecution is called before it gets violent. the hanging of homosexual boys, the castration of teenage females, and even the submission of wives to sit in the back seat of a car while the passenger seat remains empty are all arms of absolute truth. the enemy throughout history has not been the particular god's that we put in the seat of truth, but the insistence that one truth should rule over individual truth. a byproduct of this insistence is the easy-way-out of having an answer for everything that makes us uneasy (tides changing, human suffering, disease, morality, etc) but these things do not truly comfort us. they are a trade of real truth for false hope. the security blanket will never protect you from the monsters under your bed if they were real, knowing that the monsters aren't real (or at least knowing that they are not there to hurt you) is the protection.
those who claim religion as their security blanket now have traded the task of taking responsibility for the dangers in their world, for the task of protecting their security blanket. this way if the security fails we are left entirely vulnerable to anything that frightens us. this is not real assurance, faith is not security- it is simply the closest thing people believe they can get. and so they cling.

the only way we could find a religion to suit every individual, is if the religion was individual. and religion is, by definition, communal. it takes devotion to the teachings of another (beit a holy book or a holy man) and the denial of one's self-reliance. individuality and religion are mutually exclusive. now, can we have the ability to answer the questions we are uncertain of and pursue our own inquiries in the same way that the spiritual do- with poetic and emotional ferver- of course. but if we are to pursue truth, then we have to escape the 'absolute' truth of religion and abandon it for an individual belief based on personal experience and research.

 

[SoundBrain]

Direct answer to your question is NO.

It would have to be a religion which doesn't claim to know the absolute truth, which doesn't force itself unto others, which doesn't persecute anyone, which doesn't belittle mankind's potential in progression, which doesn't hang young homosexual boys and which somehow still keeps people comfortably numb - the actual purpose of this psychological placebo. So a religion that still 'works', but which doesn't have any negatives.

Even though we may be able to create a religion with all such good things, no one can actually prevent the religion from being misunderstood in the future.

A very good example from history is BUDDHISM. yes, people don't even know WHY the religion was created. I will tell you the history.

It was around 500 BC that Buddha lived as a prince of a kingdom in Nepal. It was the same time, when the so-called Aryans migrated to India and started forcing their concepts into the Hinduism of Dravidians (Aborigines of India - occupy about 70% of Indian population). One of their concepts was the CASTE-SYSTEM keeping them at the top of social hierarchy and they justified it as a way of organizing the society. But it turned out to be one of the worst form of human rights violation. (even today, only 1 or 2 states out of 28 states of South India could somewhat overcome casteism.)

Buddha was the first people's leader to counter the casteism. It was the reason he started Buddhism with absolute equality among its followers as contradicting to Hinduism. But the Aryans didn't want the people to convert to Buddhism since they will lose their self-claimed superiority in the society. So they started spreading a rumors that Buddha was none other than the incarnation of Vishnu, a Hindu God. Thats why you can see that there are buddhists everywhere in Asia except India where it was created.

Later on, people added a lot of superstitions into Buddhism and made Buddha a God! Buddha never intended that! And worst of all, caste system was also introduced in countries like Thailand and Vietnam into Buddhism.

Here you can see that the core purpose of the religion was lost in course of time. Buddhism stays close to my heart even though I m an Atheist.

So again the answer to your question is NO.

 

[Madhuri]

Buddha was the first people's leader to counter the casteism. It was the reason he started Buddhism with absolute equality among its followers as contradicting to Hinduism. But the Aryans didn't want the people to convert to Buddhism since they will lose their self-claimed superiority in the society. So they started spreading a rumors that Buddha was none other than the incarnation of Vishnu, a Hindu God. Thats why you can see that there are buddhists everywhere in Asia except India where it was created.

???
There are many Buddhists in India. Yes, there was a decline, but it has certian revived to a significant extent.

What is your evidence that the idea of Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu was just a rumour?
Actually, as a person who grew up as a Hindu, I was taught something very different. I do not believe that Gautam Buddha was ever supposed to be the incarnation of Vishnu. Gautama was named after the original Buddha, Vishnu, in the place that he visited when he became realised. This incarnation of Vishnu existed prior to Gautama.

People get mixed up. They somehow think that Buddha is a name rather than a title. So somewhere along the lines people have interpreted Gautama to be the incarnation of Vishnu. This is not true.

This is from the Srimad Bhagavatam:

“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya (Bihar) just for the purpose of infatuating those who are envious of the faithful demigods.”

The begining of Kali Yuga was over 5000 years ago.

And

“Buddha-avatara refers to Buddha who is the son of Anjana, and also in another reading, the son of Ajina. In the above verse, the name is written as Ajina or Anjana, and Kikata refers to Gaya Pradesa.” (http://nitaai.net/index.html?http://nitaai.net/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2547)

 

[YmirGF]

If it were at hand to create a new religion that everyone in apparent need of such would suddenly succumb to, would it be possible to make (it) a religion that would not be objectionable?

It would have to be a religion which doesn't claim to know the absolute truth, which doesn't force itself unto others, which doesn't persecute anyone, which doesn't belittle mankind's potential in progression, which doesn't hang young homosexual boys and which somehow still keeps people comfortably numb - the actual purpose of this psychological placebo. So a religion that still 'works', but which doesn't have any negatives.

Well, I am on record as saying that my vision of god is perhaps one of the first non-religious views of god to emerge. Sadly, it is in a perpetual state of becoming.
The first edict out of the starting gate is, if you prefer, you do not have to believe in god. It's all quite OK. It understands why you doubt and wouldn't dream of holding your honest reservations against you. Forget both heaven and hell. Forget sin. Forget worship. Forget death - if you want to. Forget evil. Forget karma... There is no oddball dress code. You may cut your hair or not. You can eat whatever you want.

The first cardinal rule is: If anyone ever tells you they know what god wants, presumes to speak for god or tells you that they are god, then run away from them as fast as you can because they will take you where you will wish you had not gone.

It's a start.

 

[SoundBrain]

???
There are many Buddhists in India. Yes, there was a decline, but it has certian revived to a significant extent.

What is your evidence that the idea of Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu was just a rumour?
Actually, as a person who grew up as a Hindu, I was taught something very different. I do not believe that Gautam Buddha was ever supposed to be the incarnation of Vishnu. Gautama was named after the original Buddha, Vishnu, in the place that he visited when he became realised. This incarnation of Vishnu existed prior to Gautama.

People get mixed up. They somehow think that Buddha is a name rather than a title. So somewhere along the lines people have interpreted Gautama to be the incarnation of Vishnu. This is not true.

This is from the Srimad Bhagavatam:

“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya (Bihar) just for the purpose of infatuating those who are envious of the faithful demigods.”

The begining of Kali Yuga was over 5000 years ago.

And

“Buddha-avatara refers to Buddha who is the son of Anjana, and also in another reading, the son of Ajina. In the above verse, the name is written as Ajina or Anjana, and Kikata refers to Gaya Pradesa.” (NITAAI ( NITyananda Gauranga Hare Krishna NAAma BhaktI ) Yoga By HH Bhaktiratna Sadhu Swami Gaurangapada)

Well.. I have been brought up in a spiritual Hindu family too..

what is my evidence to say Buddha was not an incarnation of Vishnu??????
Do you have any evidence for the contrary?

As for the Srimad Bhagavatam.. it was completed around 10th cen AD, which is over 15 centuries after Buddha. It simply supports my claim that history was messed up for the good of Hinduism.

Here is my proof for Buddha's denial of Hinduism:
Wikipedia:
Buddha's teachings deny the authority of the Vedas and consequently Buddhism is generally viewed as a nāstika(ATHEIST) school (heterodox, literally "It is not so"[2]) from the perspective of orthodox Hinduism.

This even strengthens my claim about Buddha as a people's leader(and an ATHEIST).

What else you want me to prove wrong?

 

[Madhuri]

Well.. I have been brought up in a spiritual Hindu family too..

what is my evidence to say Buddha was not an incarnation of Vishnu??????
Do you have any evidence for the contrary?

As for the Srimad Bhagavatam.. it was completed around 10th cen AD, which is over 15 centuries after Buddha. It simply supports my claim that history was messed up for the good of Hinduism.

Here is my proof for Buddha's denial of Hinduism:
Wikipedia:
Buddha's teachings deny the authority of the Vedas and consequently Buddhism is generally viewed as a nāstika(ATHEIST) school (heterodox, literally "It is not so"[2]) from the perspective of orthodox Hinduism.

This even strengthens my claim about Buddha as a people's leader(and an ATHEIST).

What else you want me to prove wrong?

Did you read ANY of my post? It clearly states that the Buddha mentioned in the Vedas is NOT Gautama that founded Buddhism.
So your 'proof' is not even relevent.

Also, you might want to give me a reason to believe that the Srmiad Bhagavatam was written in 10 century AD because I am highly skeptical. The reason that I am so skeptical is that every source I read tells me a different date. The widely believed date is over 5000 years ago, but if this is not true I want evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But, my anti-theism comes from the image of God that is not directly painted by its believers, but by the results of their actions.

That is clearly irrational.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am not an Atheist but many of you are my friends and we are most often on the same side in the debates on RF so if any of you mind my comments. Just ask and I will remove. I do not want to violate your space.

But the Aryans didn't want the people to convert to Buddhism since they will lose their self-claimed superiority in the society. So they started spreading a rumors that Buddha was none other than the incarnation of Vishnu, a Hindu God. Thats why you can see that there are buddhists everywhere in Asia except India where it was created.

I believe that it is 100 percent false that Hindus are the ones who did in Buddhism in India. This is what Ambedkar ( he was an Indian leader who was a Dalit ) had to say on this subject. All of you should know that Dr Ambedkar was not a big fan of Hinduism that is why he converted to Buddhism. This is why he is such a good source.


"The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They raised to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 AD, Mr. Vincent Smith says, "....Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the 'shaven headed Brahmans', that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. 'It was discovered,' we are told, 'that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.' "Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India...."

Many Indian Marxist Historians like to say it was Hinduism who killed Buddhism in India. They have no source material to back up their claims. (I would love to see it if it exists ) There are also old chinese texts that talk about how well the Buddhists and Hindus got along.

 

[LambNLions]

I must say,” it’s sort of an oxymoron for any atheist to speak on any matters of God or religion." I'm not saying their points to some degree if at all isn't valid, but that their ideas should be take with the proverbial grain of salt.

Religion serves no one but the vanity of its name and the ones inside controlling her. It is widely understood that,” for the Anti Christ to take control of the Earthly system, having a desire to be worshipped like God, he would hold a position that is widely seen as such (religious leader with financial clout)." I've yet to see a politician that is viewed by any as a real religious leader, so it is of my opinion that, should religions become unified by fluke necessity or by some super natural means (civil unrest, financial down falls, threats, etc.); it would be a sure sign of the beginning of the end. Europe has already taken the steps needed to become one force under the Euro, fulfilling prophecy; and I suspect that our nation’s political mishaps are directly linked to the forces that govern the Euro.

 

[SoundBrain]

Also, you might want to give me a reason to believe that the Srmiad Bhagavatam was written in 10 century AD because I am highly skeptical. The reason that I am so skeptical is that every source I read tells me a different date. The widely believed date is over 5000 years ago, but if this is not true I want evidence.

Well.. here is my reference..

Wikipedia:
The text of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as it stands dates to the later half of the 1st millennium AD, the centuries following the decline of the Gupta Empire.
It is believed that the text was completed no later than around 1000 CE, when it is mentioned by al Biruni and quoted by Abhinavagupta; the earliest suggestions of it are the composition of the Vishnu Purana and Harivamsa, and the Vaishnava Bhakti movement in South India, which limit its composition to after 500 CE.[11][12] Within this range, while some scholars like R. C. Hazra date it to the first-half of the sixth century, most others place it in the post-Alvar period around the ninth century.

You know what.. it is a fashion among the religious people to date any of their 'sacred' books much earlier than the Earth was born.. I can even make up a book written before 1,000,000 years ago..

Its not bad to worship a god and make up things to favor the presence of God, but ultimately there can be only one truth... Religions were created by humans to give them comfort in the times of despair so that they don't lose heart for every blocking stone that appears in their path. Religion is a way of life.. if you try to take it any furhter.. it results in despair for everyone.

May I ask you one thing? You seem to be highly interested in the trivial fairy tales of religions like what incarnation was Buddha? and such. But why didn't you say anything about casteism in Hinduism? Or do you have a justification for that too from a sacred book of yours from 10000000 eons ago..? I have heard enough stupid justifications from racial Hindus for casteism as if a person can change his caste by improving. Is that even happening or at least will you guys allow that?

 

[Madhuri]

Well.. here is my reference..

Wikipedia:
The text of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa as it stands dates to the later half of the 1st millennium AD, the centuries following the decline of the Gupta Empire.
It is believed that the text was completed no later than around 1000 CE, when it is mentioned by al Biruni and quoted by Abhinavagupta; the earliest suggestions of it are the composition of the Vishnu Purana and Harivamsa, and the Vaishnava Bhakti movement in South India, which limit its composition to after 500 CE.[11][12] Within this range, while some scholars like R. C. Hazra date it to the first-half of the sixth century, most others place it in the post-Alvar period around the ninth century.

You know what.. it is a fashion among the religious people to date any of their 'sacred' books much earlier than the Earth was born.. I can even make up a book written before 1,000,000 years ago..

Its not bad to worship a god and make up things to favor the presence of God, but ultimately there can be only one truth... Religions were created by humans to give them comfort in the times of despair so that they don't lose heart for every blocking stone that appears in their path. Religion is a way of life.. if you try to take it any furhter.. it results in despair for everyone.

May I ask you one thing? You seem to be highly interested in the trivial fairy tales of religions like what incarnation was Buddha? and such. But why didn't you say anything about casteism in Hinduism? Or do you have a justification for that too from a sacred book of yours from 10000000 eons ago..? I have heard enough stupid justifications from racial Hindus for casteism as if a person can change his caste by improving. Is that even happening or at least will you guys allow that?

Ok so first of all I am sure that even you can recognise that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source for important information. Also I think you will notice that they used the words 'believed' instead of 'we have evidence that' the purana was written in...etc. Then it goes on to list speculative dates rom various people. Trust me, I've read many, many sources and they all suggest some different date.
And do you actually believe that 5000 years ago is 'earlier that the Earth was born'?

We will have to agree to disagree on the topic of religion = despair. You obviously have very different experiences to me.

I wasn't interested in commenting on castism I have done that in another thread. The caste system plays no role in my life as it is cultural and not religious and i live no where near India. I disagree with caste consciousness, if you want to know.

By the way, I am not arguing with you if hinduism ir right or if God is real- I was correcting a comment you had made about Buddha which was wrong.

 

[Diederick]

the draw for religion and particularly it's psychological placebo effect is all stemmed in knowing absolute truth. without a grasp on absolute truth the numbing affect isn't there because if there is a shred of doubt then the nervous fear of the unknown is there. and holding absolute truth will always lead to evangelism, and evangelism is simply what persecution is called before it gets violent. the hanging of homosexual boys, the castration of teenage females, and even the submission of wives to sit in the back seat of a car while the passenger seat remains empty are all arms of absolute truth. the enemy throughout history has not been the particular god's that we put in the seat of truth, but the insistence that one truth should rule over individual truth. a byproduct of this insistence is the easy-way-out of having an answer for everything that makes us uneasy (tides changing, human suffering, disease, morality, etc) but these things do not truly comfort us. they are a trade of real truth for false hope. the security blanket will never protect you from the monsters under your bed if they were real, knowing that the monsters aren't real (or at least knowing that they are not there to hurt you) is the protection.
those who claim religion as their security blanket now have traded the task of taking responsibility for the dangers in their world, for the task of protecting their security blanket. this way if the security fails we are left entirely vulnerable to anything that frightens us. this is not real assurance, faith is not security- it is simply the closest thing people believe they can get. and so they cling.

the only way we could find a religion to suit every individual, is if the religion was individual. and religion is, by definition, communal. it takes devotion to the teachings of another (beit a holy book or a holy man) and the denial of one's self-reliance. individuality and religion are mutually exclusive. now, can we have the ability to answer the questions we are uncertain of and pursue our own inquiries in the same way that the spiritual do- with poetic and emotional ferver- of course. but if we are to pursue truth, then we have to escape the 'absolute' truth of religion and abandon it for an individual belief based on personal experience and research.

I agree with you here, but the posed question was about a good religion for people in need of such. It is no secret that a large percentage of the population - perhaps even half - can safely be considered stupid. People who are not capable of understanding Existentialism, who probably would never think of such big questions. People who still want answers, as is their nature, but the answers aren't really here (yet?). There is no doubt that people like us find no comfort in religion - rather the opposite - but the people who do seem to need it in a way, might be pursuaded into a universe-friendly religion. One that still gives answers to big questions but doesn't polarize entire societies.

Many people are more comfortable not being an individual and just a simple sheep, because it is the way of least resistance and that is what they're intellectually 'fine with.'

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

the idea that the answers aren't here yet is reason to seek answers, not to seek a trump card. religion is not inquiry, religion is a forfeit of inquiry. we are well past the time of any "good religion" because we are BEYOND RELIGION.

if someone is unwilling to accept that A) the world is a dangerous place and there is no advocate in the sky who will protect us and B) that we are responsible for the outcome of our own lives and actions THEN THEY ARE NOT TRULY AWAKE!!!! and to foster this existence with a "good religion" would be like chewing pain killers to avoid getting your wisdom teeth taken out. i believe the time has finally come (and if i was more brutally honest the time has ALWAYS BEEN) to relieve ourselves of the yoke of faith-for-comfort and face our all time greatest fear; WE ARE OURS, and we take credit and blame for our own actions, doubts, delights, fears, ideas, mistakes, triumphs, blunders, and success. religion has no place in the world of the thoughtful- at least not any theistic sort of religion.

 

[Diederick]

and to foster this existence with a "good religion" would be like chewing pain killers to avoid getting your wisdom teeth taken out.

Which is the exact point of this thread. There may be people who have become so dependant on religion that they wouldn't be happy without it. Religion is a placebo, people are consciously or unconsciously avoiding reality, shielding themselves from the truth with the veil of religious comfort. That is what it does, its function. My question is, whether it would be possible to create such a placebo, without the side-effects of common religion (wasting energy, materials and time as well as devaluing other people).

There is no doubt that religion is bad, because it belittles mankind's potential and is downright offensive from a naturalistic perspective. But it is still here, it is still a part of reality - which makes it important enough to consider.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

. My question is, whether it would be possible to create such a placebo, without the side-effects of common religion (wasting energy, materials and time as well as devaluing other people)..

you arent listening.
what i'm saying is that the desire for a placebo is the reason for the side effects, not the religion itself.

 

[Diederick]

I know, but that's not what I wanted to talk about when opening this thread.

The world would be better off without religion, but what if...

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

The world would be better off without religion, but what if...

and what if instead of going to war we played rock-paper-scissors, or instead of going to work we posted on religious forums all day, or what if instead of waiting in line we all got everything we wanted immediately when we wanted it...

i mean, where could this conversation go if we want to ignore all the implications of our statements?

i understand the draw for some way of harnessing the good things about religion in a secular means - but i think if you were looking for a secular religion then you should start frequenting art galleries, music venues, museums, libraries, coffee shops (although i'd avoid starbucks, it's become the new pilgrimage for trendy-xians), and build relationships with other like-minded people who can challenge what you think and feel while still holding you in an encouraging friendship. as long as these relationships are not compulsary, or subject to strict limitations then you essentially have all the positive social aspects of religion without any of the religious parts. you win! but the second that these relationships or 'rituals' are based on an abstraction that leads to self-denial then you're in the same boat as the religious, and that boat has a hole in it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If it were at hand to create a new religion that everyone in apparent need of such would suddenly succumb to, would it be possible to make (it) a religion that would not be objectionable?

It would have to be a religion which doesn't claim to know the absolute truth, which doesn't force itself unto others, which doesn't persecute anyone, which doesn't belittle mankind's potential in progression, which doesn't hang young homosexual boys and which somehow still keeps people comfortably numb - the actual purpose of this psychological placebo. So a religion that still 'works', but which doesn't have any negatives.

Animism has all the qualities you seek. Instead of looking for something knew, why not have a look at the oldest? Yes, even atheists can be animistic. I do not believe in God or gods, but I do know that this universe is vibrational, animate, and full of energy. All of existence you could say is Spirited in such a way, and it does not have to necessarily be something "supernatural".