THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF “RELIGION” IS NOT SUPERNATURAL – BUT EXPLANATORY AN

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF “RELIGION” IS NOT SUPERNATURAL – BUT EXPLANATORY AND ADVISORY.
The correct interpretation is that all civilizations require a narrative that explains non-aggression, distributes rules of non-aggression, provides personal and public rituals to reinforce non-aggression (not equality), and as such, provides a means of mindfulness.

The evidence is rather obvious that given the spectrum of present and historical religions(Abrahamic, Hindu, Buddhist), natural religions (Shinto) and pseudoreligions (Confucianism), and replacements for religion (European stoicism), secular humanism, nationalism, and communism, that there is no need for supernatural religion.

There is instead, just a need for an intuitionistic means of achieving mindfulness despite the alienation that first arose in the agrarian age over ten thousand years ago. But we are past the agrarian age. And our Christian religion,d despite coming to terms with natural law failed to reform, producing an equivalent without the superstition.

Reply addressees: @junkodama10 @MrAtheistPants @MsMelChen @michaelshermer