comment: >
  
  People have been leaving religion since we were starting to be able to read the text we were being sold. Religion last a long time because of the whole "I only know, you can't know" thing in many religions. Think of the Catholic doing mass in latin. Easy to control your flock when they don't understand or can't read the book you claim is so great. As education grew and knowledge about religion started being publicly dissected, people started realising perhaps, it is not all true (not arguing for or against religion).  So people start leaving.... the other issue is the start of the lgbt movement and lack of acceptance of those folks, many left for that... or for the lack of women's rights. The church is an old institution, designed for a different time, when people couldn't read and believed in stuff that was magical.  Now we have explanations for things before, well god answered for us. Probably just a natural progression. But yes, people will look elsewhere for community as that is one positive thing I think religion brought...
context: /u/Brhino11 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  With this ideology, any vice that gives you comfort replaces religion.
  Drink your problems away?
  Smoke?
  Play video games?
  I mean these are all activities someone could use to escape the real world and avoid facing problems. I'm not sure if you meant to put it this way but it seems like you're saying this is bad and escapism is bad.
  Regardless of religion, social media or otherwise, not everyone can handle all the burdens life presses upon them. A lot of mental disorders start as a way for the brain to cope with extreme trauma. Point is, shit is tough. If it wasn't religion or social media, some other thing would pop up for people to engage in to keep them distracted. >
  
  Δ Wow, that’s a great point. I guess I should probably check my negative value judgement on coping mechanisms. I think maybe I hold myself to such a high threshold that I sometimes feel like I shouldn’t need coping mechanisms at all. Thanks for holding the mirror up friend!
  Edit: Added a Δ >
  
  Aslo, social media doesn't provide comfort.
  It's a source of stress.   Anger,  Jealousy, fear, envy, lies is the currency of social media. >
  
  Do you think social media provides 0 comfort? >
  
  I'm not comforted by it.     Are you? >
  
  Staying connected with friends and family, sharing experiences, archiving your precious moments, a sense of community; yeah I could see these as providing comfort to some. >
  
  All of which I easily accomplish without social media or feeling the need to broadcast my life out in to the world for people to compare themselves to. >
  
  That's great for you. Personally, I don't use social media much (outside of this godforsaken site,) but I can easily understand the comfort it provides some people. >
  
  basically a nonsequitur, friend >
  
  The "opium of the masses" quote is meant that religion is what many people turn to in the uncertainty of existence to find meaning.  Marx didn't intend it as an insult, as you've implied, but rather how opium would be used to cure the pain of a person experiencing terrible pain.
  Given this information, does your view still stand that social media is a positive thing for people? >
  
  Hmmm. I guess I’ve never done a deep dive into the origins of this saying, so maybe I’ll have to do that. But I have always heard it used similarly to wrapping oneself in blanket to protect oneself from the cold. It feels nice in the blanket, so cozy and buffered from the bitter chill. But you miss a lot when you’re in a buffered state. Similarly, social media helps people escape the harsh realities of their everyday life. I guess that’s not necessarily bad, and everyone needs coping mechanisms, but I would argue that a lot of our issues, at least in the US today, are exacerbated by our impersonal interactions online. There are many studies on the decisive nature of many platforms and the way it causes people to engage in us vs them group-think. So to answer your question, as well as the one you didn’t ask, no - I don’t think most organized religion, or most social media, is a net positive for humans. >
  
  I'm confused, is your view that being wrapped in a blanket when it's cold somehow a bad thing?  
  
  but I would argue that a lot of our issues, at least in the US today, are exacerbated by our impersonal interactions online
  
  What issues?  To me it seems like we're here in the US living in the most tolerant and accepting cultural period in human history.  While not every single person is a progressive liberal, it's wildly unpopular to oppose any form of social progress.
  
  There are many studies on the decisive nature of many platforms and the way it causes people to engage in us vs them group-think.
  
  There's just as many studies that show that social media and the internet is an incredible tool for connecting people, sharing cultural exchange, and allowing people to learn different viewpoints. >
  
  Yep, we're so tolerant, that we bomb and sanctions other places who don't share our values, just to make them more tolerant like us. >
  
  I don't see how social media is numbing and self medicating. All of that competitive thirst for likes, followers and approval is stress inducing not comfort.
  I think the idea that woke have adopted religious type thinking is correct, however I see many of them on social media as the priests not the followers. >
  
  It's pull is function of how distracting it can be, but it is also really easy to get access.  Regardless of how emotionally charged it makes people, it offers an escape from reality, and into some make-believe world.  Just like religion; which does impact people emotionally, and can be stressful as well.
  I think the way people dogmatically preach various ideological concepts they've been exposed to on social media is very much an indication it is having the exact same immersive and controlling effects that organized religion has on people.  What's going on in social media has such a powerful effect on people, they're making those things part of their identity.  I'm sure anyone here can name a handful of identifiable things people are as a result of being exposed to it on social media, much in the way you could identify a christian, or a muslim.  There are furries, weebs, trans, ammosecuals, etc.  All popular, "identities," derrived almost exclusively from online communities. >
  
  If our increased political divide and massive overload of communication indicate some kind of drug-related analogy for social media, it's the it's the methamphetamine of the masses. 
  There's literally nothing calming about the anger directed at "someone in the internet who is wrong".  
  Which is another reason your analogy doesn't fit: political activism, anger, and protests have radically increased in the age of social media, which is exactly the opposite of what Marx meant: 
  
  In context, the statement is part of Marx's structural-functionalist argument that religion was constructed by people to calm uncertainty over their role in the universe and in society.
  
  If you're going to try to argue that social media is calming anyone about their role in the universe and society... well... feel free, but the evidence is massively to the contrary. >
  
  You post makes the assumption that people only go to those institutions for comfort.  You don’t understand that there are people who have an honest search for truth which leads them to God and the byproduct of that is comfort and peace.  
  Social media is just the newest substitute. There has always been cheap substitutes for truth. We can see the true value of those “truths” by how they manifest themselves in the believers. >
  
  I mean, in 2023... Don't you feel like opiates are the opiates of the masses? >
  
  I don't think religion or social media is good for 'numbing the senses'. >
  
  Sure it is.  It numbs your senses of what's
  happening in reality, and allows you to
  emerse yourself in something that allows
  you to avoid your real life problems. >
  
  I feel like thats just untrue. Going through high school with social media, it just makes things worse. Its like you can actively see with the amount of likes you have how popular you are and who doesn't like you. It makes people feel paranoid and exasterbates insecurities that already exist in real life >
  
  Social media is so tainted and negative I hardly see why anyone feels it's some sort of balm to escape the real world.
  Many use it for being a keyboard coward to harass and bully others as a sick form of entertainment. >
  
  I think the better answer for religion's replacement is actually political causes. >
  
  I think that's a good change for society.
  People arguing about religion are arguing about how the world is. It's looking at the past, and deciding what happened back then.
  People arguing about politics are arguing about how the world should be. It's looking at the present, and deciding what the future should be. >
  
  I think that just by looking at western society we can see how the shift has impacted our world negatively. Instead of thinking about how we can be individually better for ourselves and communities, we are encouraged to look at our neighbor's political affiliation and blame them for all the wrongs in the entire world.
  A community built around a religion of doing unto your neighbor as you would have done unto you, is far better than the community built around vague and shifting political causes. >
  
  Nice hot take. Where were you when this actually happened in 2016? >
  
  I wouldn't say social media replaced religion, just that religion became way less popular losing the benefits of people feeling they have a sense of purpose and divine safety, and social media has come along and found a way for people to fill their time instead of feeling meaningless, although still meaningless. >
  
  Beyond the dubious use of the "opiate of the masses" quote, I think you're comparing things that can't be compared in this manner, and one can't exactly replace the other:  
  Religion is a form of philosophy and (usually) social power structure.
  Social media is a medium of consumption and communication through which some people discuss religion. It's not replacing religion, it's replacing the T.V. people used to sit in front of all night after work. ...And probably churches, and almost any face-to-face community gathering, which worries me more.
  I do think the "decline in religion" is connected in the sense that people are on social media a lot and go to churches / temples / etc. less. But I think that's more to do with social media being relatively diverse in terms of who you interact with. In a church, everyone has largely the same beliefs and is looking to talk about the world from that perspective. On social media, framing things in terms of religion is rarely going to get you anything but hate mail.  
  Also, just as organized religion is in decline, people are more likely to call themselves "spiritual". While that might usually not involve any sort of practice like what you're looking for, I think it's an indication that religious thinking isn't declining as much as you think. >
  
  
  many have turned to social media to numb the senses and self medicate
  
  If anything under this idea, it is replacing TV instead of religion. Religion was replaced with radio, radio was replaced with movies, and movies with TV. >
  
  I feel like this is combining two things redditors love to bash. Religion as others have said isn't necessarily bad. It can provide community as does social media. But their similarities don't really connect to make it so social media has replaced religion. Given that 30% of Americans don't believe in any organized religion, you'd have to assume that all of them or most of them went on to fill that gap with social media. But they didn't. 
  Social media isn't used to numb senses or self-medicate and religion wasn't used as that either. I guess you could say it has filled the gap of community, but most people wouldn't view that as bad.
  Are there issues with both? Sure. But we have this idea that competing for attention is always bad and that most people do it to an unhealthy extreme. Or that most people only compare their lives to others. But a lot of people use social media as a means to connect and get information. A lot of people use it to motivate themselves or learn something new.  
  Many of social media's issues come from the use of it by teens and young adults. This is the same with really any new thing. I also think more studies need to be done because people attribute it solely to social media because there's a lot more going on there.
  Is Youtube is bad? Does it do more harm than good? How is watching Youtube numbing senses and self medicating? 
  Social media has allowed people to connect and maintain relationships that wouldn't happen years ago. I can keep in touch with co-workers or old friends without writing to them or giving them a call. I can look them up and find them if I need to reach out. 
  
  I’ve felt a real calling to spiritual practice involving being radically present. 
  
  What does this mean? How are you doing this? For someone who is radically present you've posted multiple times on reddit in the past few days with views that conflate two different things as the same.
  It doesn't seem like you have an understanding of social media or religion if you think they're the same or social media is a replacement. It's like when people say consumerism is a religion. Yes that makes for a critique that sounds punchy and you can draw parallels, but it isn't true. 
  Your view also ignores social media use by people who are religious outside of America. >
  
  Bro, you sound like an exmo
  Edit: Verified with your posts, you totally are haha >
  
  You found me! Does it take one to know one? >
  
  Totally
  Your description of the church made it sounds like rats jumping ship, and I knew that was all too familiar >
  
  Both social media and religion are just symptoms of various mental factors, very strongly led by confirmational bias. Therefore conformational bias is the opiate of the masses, not religion or social media. >
  
  Δ Wow! Delta awarded to you friend. This resonates with me. Perhaps I could amend my first statement as 'Groupthink has replaced religion as the opiate of the masses.' And under Groupthink, there could be several subcategories including political causes, social movements, etc. Social media is where we find our groups, for good or bad. Thanks for engaging! >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/colinwheeler (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Contrary to your view, social media is the wakeup call. By posting this on reddit, you secretly believe a view that you profess to be against.
  On social media, people can anonymously reveal their secrets. On social media, people can broadcast their views and publish their articles without the gatekeepers of the privilged, tastemaker class of book publishers and television, who lack in both diversity of background and diversity of thought.
  Conversely, social media is where the ostensibly privileged and powerful can reveal their innermost secrets, speaking truth to malicious power and sharing their vulnerabilities about being granted with things they didn't wish for without being hounded by the masses.
  It's also a place where people can freely speak out against various abuses of power from every angle without being silenced by the authorities, denied prospects and money, or paid off or smeared by the mainstream media.
  The global impact of social media transcends borders, making it possible for people to communicate and temporarily feel the virtual experience of living in another country, which by the standards of the status quo and Overton windows they live in feel more like another planet.
  It allows for outcasts and misfits who've been previously been shunned by all to find likeminded people, and for intellectuals without backing who are ridiculed by their peers and wider society to shine and find likeminded people.
  It allows people to research their issues at a drop of a hat without the prospect of being denied entry by people who refuse to take them seriously, charge too much money, or insist that they waste their time to ensure they're trusted enough to handle information that other people would rather keep secret, and to solve problems on their own that were previously thought unsolveable by a fatalistic public.
  It can transcend the boundaries of disability by providing people who cannot speak, cannot see, cannot hear or walk with the opportunitiy to be included in conversations.
  Forums like reddit which aren't overly reliant on images allow people to be judged on their opinions and intellect rather than their looks, whilst sites like Instagram allow people to market their looks and becoming living pieces of art rather than being kept out by prejudiced assumptions.
  Sites like youtube, tiktok, twitter and tumblr allow people who are gay, transgender, disabled, poor, or from an ethnic minority to become famous on their own terms.
  Although social media doesn't prevent bigotry, it allows people to adopt identities, or drop them completely; you're only as vulnerable as you allow yourself to be by telling people about yourself, which isn't always possible in the physical realm.
  The opiate of the massses is not social media, but what is seen to constitute the public sphere in its absence - the people who live nearby you or know you personally determining social norms and what you can and can't do, the government preventing you from doing as you please, businesses putting a price on everything, the vulnerabilities of people in the phycical realm in public creating a sense of general paranoia towards strangers, cultural and geographical boundaries that realm people in, and a general sense of fatalism that comes from not hearing new opinions. >
  
  Marx said this about religion. Maybe if he foresaw the gulags and The Great Leap Forward he'd realize the same could be easily said about Communism. In Animal Farm religious animals feel they'll be rewarded for being good when they get to heaven. Religion has been used to tell the masses don't make waves and you'll get rewarded in the next life.
  I haven't read Amusing ourselves to Death, but it, like Aldous Huxley when he explained that the future of humanity and oppression will be less like the boot stomping on the face forever in 1984 , and more like the Soma of Brave New World (another I'm ashamed I haven't read). Andy Warhol was prophetic when saying in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. The Century of Self by Adam Curtis is great at explaining how the US glorified selfishness in the name of individualism.
  
  Give them bread and circuses and they'll never revolt. - Juvenal
  
  Social media has helped bring about the post truth age, but it's more about the values that people hold. It's been said on social media you are the product. Algorithms know that outrage is irresistible. In America, it's legal for the news to outright lie. So we have actual fake news. Trump and other politicians' flaunting of conventional morality arouses his supporters because they see that as a sign of superiority. When Obama said the water in Flint was safe to drink, when it actually had lead, some neoliberals must have had a good chuckle. Adam Curtis' video about oh dearism helps explain how politicians profit from creating a sense of uncertainty about everything. 
  Hitler's propagandist Joseph Goebbels explained the usefulness of deceit. 
  
  If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. >
  
  I think religion or any vice or spiritual meaning has to do with coping. We have to cope with consciousness and existence. With the age of information it is harder for the church to control the masses through social media, but that doesn't stop other ideologies or personal growth in searching for meaning, or why things happen. Religion at its best gives answers to difficult questions, promotes community among people, and self love.
  It is much harder to say "I love me, I exist for no reason, and I'm fine alone" 
  Than "God loves me, I'm here for a reason, these are my people"