I think that one philosopher said it best (paraphrasing because I’m no good at quotemining): in order to make religion less shitty, we need to do something about the shitty conditions that gave rise to it.

I don’t think metaphysics is real though. The material world is all there is. When I say there is nothing after death, I mean that the chemistry inside your body that makes you alive stops functioning, and that’s all that happens.

EDIT: to be clear, I’m not anti-religion. It’s just that powerful people have a habit of using religious thinking for self-aggrandizement, shutting down criticism, and for justifying exploitation. It’s not a coincidence that missionaries came hand in hand with colonizers

with ‘nothing after death’, and ‘universe starting without a god’ being metaphysical explanations as well.

Uh, no? This is such a weird, confused argument. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, which is the natural, intuitive stance to hold in the world we live in where there is no evidence of any gods. No “metaphysical explanations” required. Show me evidence of a god and I’ll change my view, just like with everything else.

And humans are naturally spiritual

I mock people who bring up “human nature” arguments in any other circumstance, I don’t know why it would be different here. You’re not “naturally spiritual” you’ve been indoctrinated into a system of beliefs by people motivated by their material interests.

I’m an atheist but I think we should respect people’s religious beliefs. If someone is a good socialist then it shouldn’t matter if they are religious or not, being anti-religious will only make religious people avoid socialism for no real reason, we don’t get anything by being anti-religious.

I mean, of course we shouldn’t let religious institutions have power as they are usually quite reactionary, but the religious beliefs of people should be respected in my opinion.

When the Catholic church was an important political power of the feudal societies, the revolutionary bourgeois developped criticism of religion to be able to separate politics from spirituality and claim the freedom to build a liberal capitalist society.

How is it now? On one hand you have far-right sects and religious orders that clench to reactionary ideas, but in the other you have billions of people who are oppressed by the imperial core and have been raised in a religious tradition. For a lot of people, like the Muslims in France, Islam is weaponized by the colonialist factions to demonize them. A lot of leftists fall for it. Outside of the imperial core, great parts of the masses won’t listen to anyone who doesn’t respect their religion because their religion is part of their culture, part of themselves.

My conclusion is : far-right religious factions must be dealt with because they are reactionary not because they are religious. Faith must be respected so that people aren’t alienated from their culture. No organisation should ask religious people to renounce their faith as long as they are willing to use dialectical materialism and refrain from using scriptures to participate in debates.

I’m a Socialist that believes in Advaita Vedanta.

I’ve come to understand life and society through a foundational truth: beneath our diverse experiences, backgrounds, and roles, there’s an undeniable shared essence that ties us together. This understanding isn’t derived from mere philosophical musings, but from an intrinsic observation of the world and its workings.

For me, the idea of any individual being lesser or more based on arbitrary societal constructs contradicts this core essence. It’s not a matter of idealism; it’s about coherence and consistency. Given this, the glaring disparities in resources, power, and opportunities present in our society don’t just seem unjust—they seem illogical.

My belief is simple and grounded: if at our very core we all share a common thread, then fairness and equity aren’t lofty aspirations. They’re logical necessities. Our societal structures and systems should be designed to reflect this truth, ensuring that each individual’s worth is recognized and that opportunities are equitably distributed.

This is not about charity or temporary fixes. It’s about re-envisioning and realigning society in a manner that resonates with the profound truth of our shared essence.

They are not incomparable/incompatible, but each religion will be vastly different in how it engages with socialism. I am what is called a scientific/naturalistic pantheist—which I once had someone sum up as atheism with pagan decor. There is nothing metaphysical in such a worldview, but certainly, there is a different way of looking at the world. You want Heaven? You have to build it. Justice? Again, you have to build it. And rituals are great at communicating with the subconscious—one of the best examples is the “hold your breath for x seconds and then take y gulps of water to get rid of hiccups.” The specifics and values shift based on who you ask, but the folk-idea behind it is widespread and the actions and symbols of the ritual can communicate to ourselves that we want to stop hiccuping. There is the practical safety aspect of taking the time to bow so you can observe the martial art mat, and the ‘spiritual’ aspect of quickly getting your mind in the right state to learn.

I think much of the incompatibility perceived comes from when religion mirrors our present class conditions. “God/s” as kings, rulers, as a grand bourgeoisie essentially. And that’s where the problem can come in because that aspect of more traditional religions is rarely challenged. “God/s” as a grand comrade is a far more interesting concept and one that has more back and forth—there is room to disagree/alter/adapt/learn from/etc with that authority instead of that authority always overwriting the believer’s own instincts (such as on moral issues). I forget where it’s from, but “beware the believer who has never disagreed with their God over anything for their God is an unchallenged mirror.”

I’m an antitheist. If a god exists, it created evil and suffering and pain and must be made to answer for its crimes.