Close Topic Options

[Svip]

Religion is a thing of the past. It will only remain as breaks for scientific research. It will also turn into meaningless conflicts, debats and even wars.

People will die in God's name. It's thing of the past, we can live a well working society without any religion. But I admit that religion was needed back in the day.

From 1945 and beyond, religion seemed a much less needed issue, for a simple matter, in the old days ( the Middle Ages ) the government/state were not able to control every single bit of their country, in order to make people to stay in control, they gave them something to believe in. It worked for a thousand of years.

But now technology is so advance that you can watch every single corner of a nation on your mobile ( if you wish ), and religion has become obsolete.

This is not a debat with either or not God exists, it's a debat with either or not we need religion. Please discuss.

[Sillyhed2000]

Religion is an easy way of shaping people's morals ideally and pulls in thousands of dollars annually.
We don't need it, but it's probably handy to have around. There's still very much a use for it.

[teun.steenbekkers]

Religion is just a fase of denial for many people. If something is proved, some people still say it is impossible because their religion says otherwise. And the stupid thing about religion is intolerance, they allways think they are the only possible way of living life. So believing in something is denying all other options, in my opinion. For example, some people say God created the Earth, allthough it is as good as proved that the Earth was created by a giant explosion or something. So religion is like a blindfold, if you believe in one, you don't (want to) see the other options.

EDIT: So I think religion is definately not needed.

[K^2]

QUOTE (teun.steenbekkers @ Nov 26 2006, 11:18)

For example, some people say God created the Earth, allthough it is as good as proved that the Earth was created by a giant explosion or something.

See, it is statements like that that give religious fanatics space for a counter-argument.

I mean, sure there was an explosion at some point, in fact I can think of at least two, that were needed for Earth to be here. First one needed to span the universe, and second is the super-nova of a star that has generated heavy elements from which our planet is composed. But none of this has a direct impact on Earth's actual formation and evidence thereof.

Back to the topic, no I do not think religion is necessary anymore. Religions were indeed created as forms of population controll. In fact, I know of some historic cases when rulers of certain regions have accepted Christianity because it provided them with "Divine Right" to rule their lands. I'm sure similar things happened with other major religions.

However, from moments of creation, most of today's religions have evolved. All principles of Darwinian evolution are applicable here. Most religions, certainly the few most popular once, have become viruses. They spread from one person to another. The idiology of each religion is formulated in ways that make it most acceptable to a human being and that overcome the doubt in easiest way. This has analogies with operations of both biological viruses, that alter the way the cell works, and computer viruses, that alter the way that the program works. Except, religion alters how a human mind works.

Yes, a religion has very little purpose in a well organized society, but such a society is also a spreading ground for a religion, so what can you do about it? If you walk up to religious people and try to explain to them that their beliefs are simply a part of an ideological construct that has taken over their mind with a goal of using them to spread to other voulnerable minds, they will call you insane and pay no attention to what you are trying to explain to them.

[muppetmaster]

Religion in general is a tried and tested concept of ensuring we all have a stable moral ground.

There will always be things that we will never know and may never fully understand but religion can help us ignore the infinite knowledge we desire but can never obtain.

The concept of religion is only flawed by those who misinterpret it.
No major religion that has any historical basis condones actions such as genocide and war because of religious conflicts in it's teachings.

[jheath]

Assessing whether or not religion is "necessary" (as opposed to "factually correct") involves (1) having a set of goals or desired outcomes, and (2) determining if religion is the best tool for achieving those goals. As I see it, religion has served a number of concurrent roles in human society through the ages, such as:

• Preserving orderly society by demanding obediance to certain authorities
• Helping to establish a generally accepted code of moral conduct, and encouraging compliance through anticipated salvation or damnation
• Providing emotional support to individuals going through difficult circumstances or comtemplating mortality
• Furnishing final answers to difficult questions
• Establishing a basis for a cohesive "group identity"

I am sure there are many others that I've missed. My point is that assessing the usefulness of a religion involves assessing many factors. (For example, science is increasingly replacing religious mythology as a means for answering questions about the structure and physical nature of the universe, yet many still turn to religion as an emotional crutch.) It also involves deciding whether we still value the things religion provides. (A case in point is obediance to authority. An unthinking, unquestioning populace is quite necessary to preserve the absolute monarchial systems of old; whereas modern democracies function best when the population is educated and critical.)

One last note: "religion" is an incredibly broad concept, and I have the feeling many in these forums are thinking of it as though it were synonymous with the fundamentalist strains of Christianity or Islam. Some religions, such as the Buddism, are radically different from the dominant religions of the West. Consider, for example, this statement by the 14th Dalai Lama concerning science:

QUOTE

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

This debate would be best served by recognizing the fact that many different variants of religion exist, serving many different roles. When articulating a position pro- or contra- religion, please state specifically which religions, or which aspects of religion, are in question.


This post has been edited by jheath on Nov 27 2005, 02:36

[K^2]

QUOTE (muppetmaster @ Nov 26 2006, 14:52)

Religion in general is a tried and tested concept of ensuring we all have a stable moral ground. There will always be things that we will never know and may never fully understand but religion can help us ignore the infinite knowledge we desire but can never obtain. The concept of religion is only flawed by those who misinterpret it. No major religion that has any historical basis condones actions such as genocide and war because of religious conflicts in it's teachings.

First of all, what is the purpose of having morality in today's society? Surely, the laws are sufficient, as long as they are properly enforced. If it is harmfull to society, it is illegal, and if it is not, it should not be immoral either.

Second, the same religion can be viewed differently by different people. It is all part of making it more easily acceptable for different people. You think that it is the people who start wars that missinterpret the religion, and some suicide bomber might say that it is you who missinterpret it. The worste part is that neither of you are wrong.

[Reincarnated]

I believe a wise man once said "Morals is the smartest thing man ever invented." Religion is the base for morals, and we cannot afford to lose morals or else we wouldn't last very long at all.

[jheath]

QUOTE (Reincarnated @ Nov 29 2005, 17:03)

Religion is the base for morals, and we cannot afford to lose morals or else we wouldn't last very long at all.

Despite what the Church would have you believe, religion is NOT the basis for morality. In most cases, it is the basis for the uncritical acceptance of the statements made by religious authority, whether that authority is a book such as the Bible, the proclamations of a supreme leader such as the Pope, or the self-appointed prepotency of men like Osama bin Laden. Whether those statements are moral or immoral is irrelevant in the face of the fact that the blind acceptance encouraged by religious faith undermines the ability to think morally as an individual. Without critical thought, the mere acceptance of a "moral authority" offers absolutely ZERO guarantee of behaving morally. A survey of the very bloody history of cults and religions would seem to indicate just the opposite.

Think about it this way: if I were to refrain from killing people only because I feared damnation (and not because I genuinely knew why murder is wrong), I would not be acting morally; I would merely be acting out of fear. By analogy, if a policeman were to put a gun to my head and order me to eat pickles, my actions would in no way correspond to whether I 'relished' the taste or not.

[ATK]

Religion does belong in our wolrd to today and always will. Its not that tecnology has clouded our minds to forget about it. It is probably a punishmen the gods put on us to make us forget about the "right path" to go and in the end when the world is comming to an end, all that took the life of technology will die. And all who followed religion, will advance into the "next life". Thats just my perception of it.

[Reincarnated]

QUOTE (jheath @ Nov 30 2005, 00:24)

QUOTE (Reincarnated @ Nov 29 2005, 17:03) Religion is the base for morals, and we cannot afford to lose morals or else we wouldn't last very long at all. Despite what the Church would have you believe, religion is NOT the basis for morality. In most cases, it is the basis for the uncritical acceptance of the statements made by religious authority, whether that authority is a book such as the Bible, the proclamations of a supreme leader such as the Pope, or the self-appointed prepotency of men like Osama bin Laden. Whether those statements are moral or immoral is irrelevant in the face of the fact that the blind acceptance encouraged by religious faith undermines the ability to think morally as an individual. Without critical thought, the mere acceptance of a "moral authority" offers absolutely ZERO guarantee of behaving morally. A survey of the very bloody history of cults and religions would seem to indicate just the opposite. Think about it this way: if I were to refrain from killing people only because I feared damnation (and not because I genuinely knew why murder is wrong), I would not be acting morally; I would merely be acting out of fear. By analogy, if a policeman were to put a gun to my head and order me to eat pickles, my actions would in no way correspond to whether I 'relished' the taste or not.

I can't clearly see what you mean. I understand the point where "if I were to refrain from killing people only because I feared damnation (and not because I genuinely knew why murder is wrong), I would not be acting morally." Morality should stem from the person not from any religion/religious leader. Do you think that if we never had religion that we would automatically be moral? Let's be honest, the only reason that humans became moral is because of the fear (of eternal damnnation). Although, the more advanced life forms should realize that killing is wrong regardless, most people would simply act out of fear. So, wouldn't it make sense to have religion tie in with morals? Wouldn't more people, from the time they were born, taught that killing is wrong because if they did, harm would come to them (the harm being sent to hell). Try your best to make sense of this, argh, I think im rambling here.

[Mortukai]

@Reincarnated: You're right. You can't clearly see what jheath means. Hell, I don't even think you can see what you mean. Let's take a look...

QUOTE (Reincarnated)

I understand the point where "if I were to refrain from killing people only because I feared damnation (and not because I genuinely knew why murder is wrong), I would not be acting morally." Morality should stem from the person not from any religion/religious leader.

Here it looks like you are saying that morality should stem from the person, and not religion. It looks like you're saying this because those are the words you used, as highlighted in bold.

But then...

QUOTE (Reincarnated)

Do you think that if we never had religion that we would automatically be moral? Let's be honest, the only reason that humans became moral is because of the fear (of eternal damnnation).

Here it looks like you're saying that the only reason humans have morals is because of fear of eternal damnation. It looks like you're saying this because those are the words you used, as highlighted in bold.

And then...

QUOTE (Reincarnated)

Although, the more advanced life forms should realize that killing is wrong regardless, most people would simply act out of fear.

Ummm.... which "advanced life forms" are we talking about here, exactly? Aliens? Spiritual balls of light? Super-intelligent pawpaws?

Morality is something that only applies to humans. It is created by humans for humans. Morals are rules guiding human behaviour towards other humans, sometimes other species, and, although extremely rarely, sometimes plant life as well. But moral rules are never meant to apply to other life forms in guiding their behaviour. It would be stupid to claim that a shark is immoral for killing a scuba diver.

So apparently, we humans are "advanced life forms". But then you say that despite this, most people would simply act out of fear, thus undermining their status as "advanced life forms".

___

But regardless of your incoherent post and self contradictory claims, I'm curious about something. You (and more than a few other posters to this topic) seem to be claiming that religion is necessary for morals. Interesting. Does that mean that by your logic, all athiests are immoral? What if we take your stance one step further, and say that not just religion, but fear of eternal damnation is necessary for morals. Does that mean that buddhists and daoists and hindus and scientologists are all immoral?

Is it true that without the fear of eternal damnation, people break down and lose all moral sensibility, and start running around naked covered in the blood of innocent children raping everything that moves before disemboweling it, eating the entrails, and crafting a nifty hat from the skin?

Hell, if even ONE person in the world has done that, why haven't I downloaded the edited video which added the star wars kid?

I think it's far more true, that instead of religion dictating morals... that our morals dictate religion. Think about it. Pretty much every religion in the world is essentially just an elaborate justification for human morals. All religions share the vast majority of their moral rules. Sure there are some wacky ones, but there are wacky laws too. People can be eccentric. But all religions agree that killing is bad, rape is bad, stealing is bad, being nice to people is good, being generous is good, forgiving people is good, etc.

We have had morals far longer than anything resembling an organised religion ever materialised. We've had morals when people were superstitious enough to believe that a lunar eclipse was the workings of witches, and that making lots of noise would confound the witch's spells and cause the moon to return. We've had morals when people believed that rivers were created by giant snakes and lakes by giant frogs. We've had morals when people worshipped shamans who danced around in feathers mumbling incoherently and shaking like a spastic.

Religions stem from morals. Religions are elaborate explanations for why everyone else should behave in a way which the creators wish them to. That's why there are so many religions, and so few moral rules. Our moral rules evolved to ensure the smooth workings of social groups. Every social animal has its own set of moral rules which guide the behaviour of the individuals such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Morals are no more than rules about what is "right" and what is "wrong", what is "good" and what is "bad", and these are all defined by their effect on other people, not on oneself. It's bad to kill because it hurts other people, not because it hurts yourself. It's bad to steal because it hurts other people, not because it hurts yourself. It's bad to rape because it hurts other people, not because it hurts yourself. In fact, for every moral rule, it's more often the case that breaking that rule will be beneficial for the individual. Eliminate competition. Gain possessions. Reproduce without all the singing and dancing of the mating rituals. But it's wrong because it's harmful to the collective. And for a social animal, this is important. If every individual had no morals, the social group simply would not function, because every individual would constantly be undermining the others. Thus the more successful humans would be those that could work together. In other words, it's evolutionarily more advantageous for social animals to have morals than to not have them. So we have them.

It's very simple when you think about it. But there's the catch. You have to think.

[Leftcoast]

Let's not forget that religion is often a tool used by people, I think morty mentioned something to this effect.

I'll name no names here, but the world has it's fair share of people convincing others to do what they tell them is gods will. It goes to show. You know you created god in you own image when he hates the same people you do.

[The_man]

I think this whole topic is idiotic. Sure, religion is not needed for population control, but religion is needed for the individual. Religion for many people gives them a sense of belonging, and instructs them on how to live their daily life. Religion can give people hope, and as seen with religious people who can impale themselves with no pain and drink strychnine, there is also a psychosematic benefit to it as well.

Religion is needed for a whole host of reasons like these, and if you dont need religion, fine. But to act like people who are religious have a disease is wrong. Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[asimov]

religion might not have an effect on the government and ours lives as much as it did in the middle ages (in which case it ruled with an iron fist) but now i think it is more like giving people inner strength. think about all the stories you hear all the time of people overcoming cancer, or beating unparralled odds because of their previous or newfound faith in god. rendering religion obsolete would crush many, many people.

science can progress just fine with religion by its side, yeah some religions might take stances on abortion, same sex marriges, stem cell research etc, but i'm sure there will be a somewhat happy comprimise in the future, hopefully in sciences favour.




*that last bit didn't make too much sense, but what does it matter

[The_man]

Yeah well about the cancer victims, thats what I was talking about when I said it was psychosomatic.

Not only would people be crushed, but how would you go around legislating it?

You cant just go tell the world that there is not allowed to be religion anymore.

Sure religion will lead to wars, it already has many times, but people will still fight about things loike land and property. There is no way to have a peaceful world so long as people and nations can disagree on things.

[Crimson.]

Well if thats what you want to belive then do so, have fun in hell, thats all I can say.

Yes I am a christian if you have a problem to freakin bad.

[Reincarnated]

@Mortukai

*Im going to move slowly away from my stance on religion and try to prove another point which I am making. Mortukai makes sense so Im not going to pursue that because I, obviously, got my sh*t mixed up.

Aside from my babbling, IMO, if religion was taken away, utterly, then most, i mean most not all, people would EVENTUALLY start to steal more, kill more, etc. Killing would probably be more extreme but then there's stealing. Most people, imo, don't steal because either 1: they would probably get caught, or 2: They feel bad about it (morals) or feel like they will be sinning (religion) if they do. If religion was taken away, do you think that the crime rate would be significantly higher, lower,
or the same.

New paragraph- Humans are just basically animals aren't they? Isn't morals what seperates us from the animals? Morals is closely connected to religion; according to their spirtual leaders. Now it cannot be argued that MOST people on the planet Earth believe in some religion. Now if religion was taken away (and no alternative), people's morality would drop. Some people's morality may stay the same (ie Mortukai), but for some other people, their morality would drop significantly.

[asimov]

QUOTE (Reincarnated @ Dec 1 2005, 20:49)

Aside from my babbling, IMO, if religion was taken away, utterly, then most, i mean most not all, people would EVENTUALLY start to steal more, kill more, etc. Killing would probably be more extreme but then there's stealing. Most people, imo, don't steal because either 1: they would probably get caught, or 2: They feel bad about it (morals) or feel like they will be sinning (religion) if they do. If religion was taken away, do you think that the crime rate would be significantly higher, lower, or the same.

Just because some hypothetical law is passed which prohibits religion, that doesn't mean peoples morales will be coompromised or forgotten alltogether. i mean, if you have really good morales and you find a wallet on the street, a law won't stop you from doing the right thing and handing it in.

[ISuck]

QUOTE (Svip @ Nov 26 2005, 13:26)

From 1945 and beyond, religion seemed a much less needed issue, for a simple matter, in the old days ( the Middle Ages ) the government/state were not able to control every single bit of their country, in order to make people to stay in control, they gave them something to believe in. It worked for a thousand of years. But now technology is so advance that you can watch every single corner of a nation on your mobile ( if you wish ), and religion has become obsolete.

Big Brother has met its match

QUOTE

Back to the topic, no I do not think religion is necessary anymore. Religions were indeed created as forms of population controll. In fact, I know of some historic cases when rulers of certain regions have accepted Christianity because it provided them with "Divine Right" to rule their lands. I'm sure similar things happened with other major religions.

Are you serious? The story of Jesus foretells a life of disobedience towards the government and tell us to shape our lives like him. I knew government planners were stupid but there's no way they would be so stupid as to create this.

This post has been edited by ISuck on Dec 2 2005, 00:50