Religion and modern society.

[nostress]

Everything we do in life is a matter of choice, and it should come as no surprise that religion is one of those choices. I chose to be an atheist, just as some people chose to be theists.

The problem isn't really whether a modern society needs religion, because religion will *always* be there, in one form or another. The issue is how to deal with religion, knowing full well how embedded it is into society, and even matters of state. I'm from Romania, and one verse of our national anthem loosely translates 'Priests, with the cross out in front! for the army is christian'. The difficulty in handling religion is its ambiguity. How can something that comforts people, and brings communities together, but at a moment's notice, can be turned into an instrument of war, be controlled?

Maybe controlled isn't the best word, but in my view, an ideal modern society would be based on common sense, responsibility and order. Religion shouldn't be a major factor, it should remain something personal and intimate.

[Aarokh]

Originally Posted by haylie What's the difference between believing God created the world cause some guys in black coats said so or believing a huge explosion created the universe cause some guys in white coats said so? Which is more absurd?

Quoted for teh winz!

And to answer on that: I don't believe in either because it is not important to me. I simply am, because my parents had a great night together and I am the result~ And when I die I die.

I am not frightened of death itself. If it happens it happens. I am frightened about how it might happen though. And why should I be frightened at all? I don't know if something like a hell or heaven really exists, so why should I waste time worrying about it? Spending all my life for just finding out that in the end there is the absolute nothing or something I least expected? I don't expect anything. That way I cannot be disappointed. (If one is even capable of being disappointed or if there is simply a /dev/null so to speak.)

Originally Posted by Led ++ I feel that religion and government should be two divided by law.

Oh yeah my favourite thought on exactly this topic:

IF a government is supporting and sporting religion, there's no reason to not accept criminal acts by simply saying "God told me to do it!". It would justify everything and no one can prove you wrong if they officially state "Yes, religion/god exists and we as a government believe in it!".

If they believe in religion, they also believe that he really has the power to interact with individual people (Moses for example had a nice convo with god on some certain mountain .P) so how would regular people have the right to say " But he didn't talk to you and you are just lying! "? They couldn't prove it at all and would have to accept it. Because if they don't believe you, they shouldn't believe in their religion either because that also "could" be a lie.

And yeah, this is my reason for saying: Those two should definately be divided by law. You cannot connect religion and government because it brings major flaws in either the one or the other.

[Led ++]

The content is irrelevant. No one gives a flying hell what the religion is about. It doesn't matter. If it is an institutionalized religion its effects on society as a whole would be absolutely the same.

What? I don't see how you can take the content out of religion. And it sure as hell (no pun intended) isn't irrelevant.

It was used in ancient time as the basis for legislation and morality when the state wasn't powerful enough to enforce them itself (The Ten Commandments are basically copy/pasted in today's most Constitutions)

The state to me looked more powerful back in the old days when everything it said was law, no questioning. The state WAS the religion.

And the ten commandments are in todays constitutions because they are the base of our survival. It's in human nature (for normal people) to know that killing is a bad thing. Yet we kill people everyday. The ten commandments aren't in the constitutions because some old wise guy got them from god.

They are the base of a society that can live together. Moses knew that when he had to stay at his mountain for 40 years or so. Egyptians knew it some 1000's of years before him. And we still know it. But it's not our god that says it, it's our common sense.

Do we need religion? Some evolutionary biologists actually believe that we do. Dawkins himself allows for this, quoting one milestone study which links the survival of the human race to our unique ability to take for granted and accept as truth things that seem outlandish and have no proof behind them. Authority, in general, is an evolutionary concept which enables group activity and survival, and as such any authority - real or imagined - creates the cohesion as a species we need to evolve.

Now this is interesting.

Everything we do in life is a matter of choice, and it should come as no surprise that religion is one of those choices. I chose to be an atheist, just as some people chose to be theists.

And many people don't get the choice.

[Toecheese]

An interesting few points raised by Haylie, but I would contend one major flaw in your argument, religion is most certainly NOT split in the USA in fact it too has a Christian monopoly 78.5%!!



Interestingly enough this makes no difference to my personal beliefs, I consider myself an agnostic athiest. All you agnostics out there probably are too and most of you thiest's (believers) are probably agnostic thiest's.

This might help explain it!

However, my answer to the initial question is 'No' we don't NEED religion in our modern society (however you care to define either) but without religion in our society would it be any better or worse? That I don't know!

As Haylie points out we need to define society, China for example was run by an atheist communist party and between 1942 and 1980 religion was banned. Post 1980 more religious freedoms were granted. They are still run by a communist party but they are no longer enforcing atheism on the masses.

Which was better for the society....probably the one with religion allowed!

But ONLY because it was something they had taken away. You cannot expect a society anywhere in the world to act the same if something they once took for granted is forceably removed from them.

However, if you were able to find societies that developed with a complete absence of religious belief and compare them to ones that did develop religions you would then find your answer as to if religion is needed or not.

However, by my (somewhat limited) knowledge there are no such religion free societies, and therefore the answer would be a definitive YES religion is needed, otherwise there would already be societies without religion!!

Confused yet....I am!!

Finally should people be allowed to believe in whatever they want with out reprimand or abuse from other? ABSOLUTELY.

[sevti]

I think this

Get out of your collective bubbles and look at religion objectively, not from the point of what you believe in.

Came from statements like this

And people wonder why I'm Pagan.

"My religion is better"

I'm trying to get them out of their bubble and think rational for a minute. Even tho I know it's almost pointless because faith is something strong.

"Faith precludes rational thought."

Content is irrelevant because this discussion shouldn't be about which religion is better or who needs to be pulled out of a "bubble." It should be about the umbrella term religion as it relates to society, not about how Christianity or Paganism or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism each individually effects society. Unless you've misled us.

But isn't the society as a whole also the individual?

No. I'm reading this question in context similarly to "doesn't religion rule each individual only as much, and just as much, as religion rules their society?" The answer's a resounding no; look at this thread. Each individual American would be 79% Christian.

Do we need religion? Some evolutionary biologists actually believe that we do.

As a tangent, it's interesting to look at how faith relates to healing. It's certainly not a panacea, but in several situations persons with faith have a marked improvement in speed of recovery or length of life. Even faith in the medication to work; look at the placebo effect.

But again, that's more about belief than it is religion, and the individual than society. Religion is an effective tool for society, but its potential necessity lies at a more individual level in my opinion.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Dridzt Are you making this up as you go?

Nope. I'm actually quoting it from my Sociology teacher. I happen to agree with him.

"a social phenomenon meant to organize society in a state where the law or moral code doesn't allow it" According to who is that such an obvious truth? Care to qualify that with some historic or even contemporary examples so we have something more than hot air to talk about?

Okay. Take the medieval society in Europe. Back then the idea of "state" or "government" was nonexistent. All the things we take for granted today in a democratic society (schooling, medial care, social aid, counseling) were not available for your average Joe the farmer and his 20 kids that happened to constitute the vast majority of the population.

The first schools for children were created by the church, with the intention of teaching kids to read the Bible, to sing songs, to memorize prayers, etc. Before that, schooling was only available to the nobles and they had to pay big money for it.

Medical care for peasants? The church. Help for the poor? Church again. See where I'm getting at?

Want more recent examples? Okay. Take the US. By the way, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, it was Tocqueville that studied this topic. The US democracy is different from European democracy in the sense that it is very focused on the individual and not on the society as a whole. It encourages individualism, competition and generally doesn't encourage solidarity. There is no incentive for people to organize themselves in a community. There is a "void" created within the system, and it is thanks to religion that this void is filled. People organize themselves in communities because of religion. People don't act like douchebags with one another because of religion. If the state doesn't tell them not to act like douchebags, it's religion that does it. The state only guarantees human rights, there's no moral, no feeling of belonging to a community. And it is exactly this that makes it a democracy. It's a democracy because it is neutral, because it doesn't favor one moral over another. It leaves people the freedom to choose what moral they want, be it religious or not. All societies need a moral code to function properly. If the state doesn't provide it they will go to religion, or invent their own morals. But most of the times, they happen to coincide with religious morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc).

"is nothing more than a form of crowd control" Who's the controller and who's the crowd? Which category do you place yourself in? Kinda breaks that notion of society as an atom right there.

By "crowd control" I mean providing a moral code for the people so that they understand basic human rights and wrongs such as don't kill other people, don't steal, and later respect and your peers, respect your parents, be loyal to your wife etc. Society cannot exist without moral codes, like I said above. If there is no state to provide them or the state, like in the US, chooses to leave the freedom to the people to choose their own morals (I'm talking about stuff that isn't guaranteed by law, such as no stealing, no killing, etc.) then people will turn to either religion or common sense for a moral code. But that begs the question, where does common sense come from? School? Well, thank religion for inventing it then.

From your final apostrophe it looks like all you got from the discussion sofar is that everyone (but you) is looking at religion (our subject) subjectively. News flash! That's all individuals do... "Objectivity" is also a moving target approximated through discourse where subjective views and perceptions clash, merge, cancel out until synthesis is reached.

It certainly looked that way when all I could read from people bashing religion was "LOL YOU BELIEVE A DUDE UP IN THE SKY CREATED US THAT'S LIKE SO DUMB".

By subjective, I meant that they take the premise that what religion wishes to transmit is fake, then build their arguments around that. Religion is SO much more than 'the world was created like this' and 'you have to do this or that else you go to hell'. Religion wasn't just dreamed up by some guy high on opium one day. Religions were developed by intelligent and dedicated people over the course of hundreds of years. Religion explained phenomenons of nature back when no one gave a rat's ass about it, encouraging people to be interested in these phenomenons and later leading to research and even science (I like to think at least one scientist decided to study science one day just to piss the Church off). Religion gave life meaning. Religion helped develop art and cultures. Religion has shaped our society for hundreds of years and continues to shape it even today.

I've seen different interesting viewpoints (including your own sofar apart from that "me vs all" complex) with just hints of convergence.

It's me against the world, baby. I wouldn't have it any other way.

We've had self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics, skeptics and religious people pitch in, how you manage to fit them all in bubbles is quite a feat

My response wasn't directed at everyone, just the ones that based their dismissal of religion on the fact that "LOL BUT HOW CAN A DUDE CREATE THE EARTH".

Originally Posted by Led ++ What? I don't see how you can take the content out of religion. And it sure as hell (no pun intended) isn't irrelevant.

Like I said before, the fact that you blindly believe in whatever other people tell you makes no difference whether you believe God or the Big Bang created the Universe, whether the Ten Commandments or the Constitution are what people should follow, etc. You believe in something other people told you, be it religion, the state, your parents, your teachers, etc.

All types of religion served the exact same purpose, the one I've blabbered about above. Be it Christianism, Buddhism, freaking Egyptian mythology. They all:

1. Tried to explain the world's origin and certain natural phenomenons
2. Gave people a moral code so as to not kill themselves
3. Encouraged the development of art, culture, philosophical thinking, literature, etc.

In a nutshell, they all shaped the modern world. And the content is irrelevant, even more so as all the wold's religions have a lot of similarities.

Originally Posted by Led ++ The state to me looked more powerful back in the old days when everything it said was law, no questioning.

So... today, everything the state says (The Constitution) isn't law? (funny story: it is)

The state WAS the religion.

EXACTLY. There was no state, so people needed religion to fill that role. You agree with me, you just don't realize it yet, don't ya?

And the ten commandments are in todays constitutions because they are the base of our survival. It's in human nature (for normal people) to know that killing is a bad thing.

No it isn't. It's a part of our moral code. If you took a newborn baby and abandon it in the jungle to be raised by animals, it wouldn't know that killing is bad. Humans aren't born with morals. We learn morals from other people, from our parents, from school, from... religion?

Yet we kill people everyday.

How do you explain that? If it's human nature not to kill ourselves, why DO we kill ourselves?

The ten commandments aren't in the constitutions because some old wise guy got them from god. They are the base of a society that can live together. Moses knew that when he had to stay at his mountain for 40 years or so. Egyptians knew it some 1000's of years before him. And we still know it.

Exactly. We need moral codes. We need someone smarter than us to tell us not to kill each other, not to steal, not to act like douchebags to one another. Ever stop to wonder why all religions advocate almost the same basic principles as the 10 Commandments? Why they are all so similar?

Maybe they have a common origin, maybe God dictated them, maybe some guy high on opium thought it all up. Who knows. Who cares. Thank whoever's out there that they did, else we'd all still be in trees right now.

But it's not our god that says it, it's our common sense.

Before you had your "common sense" to guide you, people used religion for that very purpose.

[Sideshow]

Religion has nothing to do with a god in a direct way.
Religion is not a matter of "need".
Religion is typical for mankind and will always exist, whether it is very explicit or modest.

[Dawn]

@haylie
As you said yourself, religion helped to shape our world.

What I think you are missing is the fact that it is in no way modern at all. It's the exact same people running around. You know, the ones who can kill each other and tear them self apart when no one teaches them not to do it and most importantly WHY they should not do it.

Education is the keyword here, not state or religion. Those institutions where put in place for a reason. One purpose is education, which in turn leads to self awareness, science, all the things that can give live meaning without being like "omg look at my neighbour, he got something I want, let's kill him!1"

I don't understand how you can make a bad thing out of religion and not at all blame society at the same time. Because todays society is lacking, too.

It's right that all of the big (and probably all of the minor religions) did very bad things in history. Or things where done in the name of religion (which is a hughe difference to the religion telling you to do it). But that's mainly because religion is made by people for people and people can fail or even be a complete FAIL - no matter if they are politics, religious or a leader of whatever kind. Most, if not all of the time you can not blame the religion for it, but the people.



I have a strong believe in ethics, in right and wrong. I consider myself a person with a strong belief, based on education in history, society and knowledge in general. Yet, I'm agnostic when it comes to believing in (a) God.
Don't get me wrong here I don't consider myself supernatural, intelligent, or better than others in any way.


The whole point is, that people don't need to follow one specific way, but the right one. And like I said before, everything that helps people to get on their way is good. Don't forget that people ARE DIFFERENT. Some have a strong believe in supernatural things. Some believe in NOTHING but what THEY CAN SEE with there own eyes. You can't step in and find a solution for all of the different type of people when you refrain from using all of the different types of ... connecting/communicating/getting through to/with people ...


Again this topic is like "What is your favourite colour?"
1 Red
2 Yellow

gogo vote...

It shouldn't be that way.

[Dridzt]

Originally Posted by haylie Okay. Take the medieval society in Europe.<snip> The first schools for children were created by the church, with the intention of teaching kids to read the Bible, to sing songs, to memorize prayers, etc. Before that, schooling was only available to the nobles and they had to pay big money for it. Medical care for peasants? The church. Help for the poor? Church again. See where I'm getting at?

I guess such small details like the tithe (while at the same time the church paid no taxes),
the holy inquisition and burning pagan healers and nursemaids to the stake,
the crusades, the building of cathedrals in the midst of the black plague and gathering land and wealth that surpassed anything seen on the face of the earth to that point somehow skipped your professor's attention

The medieval age is generally considered to be the 1000 years from around 450 to 1450.
For the vast majority of this time illness was considered punishment for ones sins and intervening with destiny's path an act of prideful sin in itself.
Surgery never gained the acceptance of the church till the end of this whole period.
"Education" apart from the teaching of hymns consisted mainly of sermons terrorizing peasants (serfs in their majority) with fire brimstone and eternal damnation if they failed to serve their lords and church for the masses.

[MoonWitch]

While I love a good debate on religion and politics, it's generally the cause for most fights and flamewars on fora.

I've not read most posts in this topic and I will not do so in the future, simply because I'd end up replying to people and thus flaming a heated debate.

Personally, (and here come the PMs calling me names lol) I believe in a universal energy, with both masculin and feminin sides. Why? Because it makes me feel good and at peace. Ultimately that is the sole purpose of a religion, imho, to help mankind be mankind. So for me, no matter what it stands for for others, the "witch" part of my nick *is* who I am. But I'd like to clarify, I don't cast spells, and I don't turn folks into newts :P I just believe that nature itself is deity and that what I send out comes back to me. (aka I wish bad to people, I'll get bad **** happen to me.)

As far as mixing politics and religions : I too live in Belgium, and Led you may be the only one getting this, but I strongly feel that in Belgium the Church as religious institute has far too much power in our political landscape. Almost all parties (at least the bigger players) are Christian in Belgium, several religions got official recognition here, with their holidays acknowledged. Yet my own choice - and many others like myself - are forgotten, yet I too pay taxes, I too work, I too pay for social security.

Can you see why I feel religion/politics aren't good topics :P I can't help but get on a damn soapbox.

Led, let's talk about the recent sex scandals involving the Church here. Let's assume part of the stories are true, even if it's just one of them all.
Prep won't get punished, perp will continue to receive benefits, pension, and wll live in some abbey for the remainder of his life. Do the same crime as non clergy, and you'll be in jail. That's what I call the remnants of power of the Church.

Anyhow, my BP is about 10 points higher as it should be :P

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Dridzt I guess such small details like the tithe (while at the same time the church paid no taxes), the holy inquisition and burning pagan healers and nursemaids to the stake, the crusades, the building of cathedrals in the midst of the black plague and gathering land and wealth that surpassed anything seen on the face of the earth to that point somehow skipped your professor's attention

What seems to escape YOUR attention is the fact that all the things you mentioned here result from people's lack of understanding or bad interpretation of religion, or what they do in the name of religion, not the religion itself. Religion in and of itself is good. It's the people that interpret it in bad ways that makes it bad. Like someone said earlier in this thread,

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

You seem to have a personal grudge against religion since you refuse to believe it actually does anyone any good.

The medieval age is generally considered to be the 1000 years from around 450 to 1450. For the vast majority of this time illness was considered punishment for ones sins and intervening with destiny's path an act of prideful sin in itself.

You're too quick to judge the medieval society based on today's society and what you perceive to be the 'right' type of society, the right type of moral codes, the right type of understanding of natural phenomenons. Maybe people back then actually believed illness was a punishment and intervening with destiny was wrong? It was a medieval society, what do you expect?

Surgery never gained the acceptance of the church till the end of this whole period.

Cause cutting open a man with unsanitary tools was such a great idea back then. Gee, maybe the church noticed that people cutting themselves open was kinda making them die, so to protect them they had to forbid it?

"Education" apart from the teaching of hymns consisted mainly of sermons terrorizing peasants (serfs in their majority) with fire brimstone and eternal damnation if they failed to serve their lords and church for the masses.

Oh so, I don't know, learning to read isn't something worth mentioning? You know, how reading the Bible actually caused more people to understand it better which led to the eventual downfall of everything religion back then was, therefore evolution? What would have been the alternative? Never learn to read at all?

You also failed to comment on the rest of my post and chose to bash only the parts that you had knowledge about.

[Dridzt]

They never taught anyone to read, they taught people to sing hymns.
Reading skills was limited even among the upper classes and the clergy itself let alone the serfs (was non-existent)

I don't have a grudge against you or religion I'm a "live and let live" person.

I picked a specific part of your post not because I lack knowledge or opinion on the rest,
but for reasons of brevity.

Unfortunately it is so full of misinformation I'd need several walls of text to counter each point separately,
so take it as an example if you wish, I picked the one I could reply to summarily.

I like Neo-Platonism so much.
Ofc the ideas are pure it's the imperfect human condition that taints everything.

Such a pity we have to contend with realities and the human lives are shaped by actual social forces with political and monetary strength (like the church and institutions) and not abstract ideals.

I have no grudge against any religion I have no need for it for my own person as I clearly stated on my first post.

I make no special effort to like or dislike religious people as I wouldn't for race, age, ethnicity etc.
I've enjoyed hours of conversation about the meaning of life the universe and everything with childhood friends that are deeply religious.

Anyway I'm going to give this thread a rest for a while.
I hope it goes back to being a bit more pluralistic but thanks for the exchange, agree or disagree it's still stimulating

[Rigorous]

I, unfortunately, have neither the time nor the inclination at the moment to wade into this discussion, much as I would like to.

Instead, I'll just leave my favorite quote of late:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureat in physics

Pretty much sums it all up for me.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Dridzt I picked a specific part of your post not because I lack knowledge or opinion on the rest, but for reasons of brevity. Unfortunately it is so full of misinformation I'd need several walls of text to counter each point separately,

Oookay, take the easy way out and call me misinformed while you preach yourself as the "nice person that doesn't wanna argue". You know, I think I preferred your trolling.

[Led ++]

Okay. Take the medieval society in Europe. Back then the idea of "state" or "government" was nonexistent. All the things we take for granted today in a democratic society (schooling, medial care, social aid, counseling) were not available for your average Joe the farmer and his 20 kids that happened to constitute the vast majority of the population.

They didn't have a government? Sure it's not the sort of democratic society we have now, but they did have a government. Lead by the ones claiming to act in the word of god. And you just didn't question that. Not if you wanted to live.

All those things weren't available for Joe the farmer because he was just a cheap/poor workforce. Constantly getting told everything would be alright once he get's into heaven where everyone is equal. The one who did actually benefit were once again the people with lots of money who could literally buy their way in, or the people who studied the word of god. They were the ones getting education (again, the word of god, nothing more), medical care, ...

The first schools for children were created by the church, with the intention of teaching kids to read the Bible, to sing songs, to memorize prayers, etc. Before that, schooling was only available to the nobles and they had to pay big money for it.

And who got to go to school? Not Joe the farmer or his 20 kids. With some luck some priest came to him and told him how wonderful god is and that he has a plan for everyone etc. In the meanwhile the educated could just profit more and keep the power.

Medical care for peasants? The church. Help for the poor? Church again. See where I'm getting at?

Great and at the same time you couldn't doubt the one they called god. Help the poor? The church made a great deal of money from the poor yeah.


Keeping people stupid but "comfortable" at the same time.

There is no incentive for people to organize themselves in a community. There is a "void" created within the system, and it is thanks to religion that this void is filled. People organize themselves in communities because of religion.

And what about all the non-believers? They have this void in their life? No. They live a normal life like anyone else. There are communities of every kind if type, religion is just one of many.

People don't act like douchebags with one another because of religion. If the state doesn't tell them not to act like douchebags, it's religion that does it. The state only guarantees human rights, there's no moral, no feeling of belonging to a community.

I don't act like a douchebag and I don't need to have someone (especially a jealous god) to tell me not to act like a douchebag. The state does tell em not to act like a douchebag, it's called the law. Does that mean in society there won't be douchebags? Ofcourse not, that's exactly the same with religion. You make it sound that if someone religious tells you not to act like a douchebag you wont act like one.

A state should make you feel like a community, you and me are both part of a community, it's called .. the state. No moral in the state? Didn't you say they all used the ten commandments? It's intelligence and experience that makes morality. And morality is dependent on the position you live in. Your morale would be very different if you lived in one of the execution camps during WW2. Do you think religious people wouldn't kill or steal in conditions that aren't perfect. Ofcourse they would, because they're human. Just like everybody else. And it's that humanity that makes our morale, be it by believing what your god has written on 2 stone tables, or be it your own experience, intelligence, ...

It leaves people the freedom to choose what moral they want, be it religious or not.

You don't choose a morale, it develops. If I was born in the USA I would have a totally different morale. I probably would be religious too.

If the state doesn't provide it they will go to religion, or invent their own morals. But most of the times, they happen to coincide with religious morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc).

Which basically means you don't need religion to have a good morale. And a religious morale doesn't guarantee no stealing, killing, raping, dancing naked in a fire, etc.

Religion explained phenomenons of nature back when no one gave a rat's ass about it, encouraging people to be interested in these phenomenons and later leading to research and even science (I like to think at least one scientist decided to study science one day just to piss the Church off). Religion gave life meaning. Religion helped develop art and cultures. Religion has shaped our society for hundreds of years and continues to shape it even today.

Oh come on. People (rleigious and non religious) have ALWAYS been fascinated by phenomenons they could not understand. And we will always be fascinated as we have a natural desire of understanding things. This is nothing t hat religion gave us, it's build in our brains.

You say religion gave life a meaning, thus that also means you know the meaning of life. I would certainly like to know what the meaning of life is. If anything it forced their meaning of life onto other people.
Religion indeed helped develop art and culture. Ofcourse when you only allow people to make 'god' inspired culture people would have to believe you're telling the truth yes? Huge amounts of men and women have been killed because they didn't agree and wrote/painted/whatever something that wasn't right in the vision of religion. Religion (and many other things) shaped our society for hundreds, thousands of years yes. And imo they held back our progression for hundreds of years.

You believe in something other people told you, be it religion, the state, your parents, your teachers, etc.

Which is obvious. We all grow up in a specific environment which has an impact on HOW we develop ourselves. That's the case for EVERYONE in this tiny world.

1. Tried to explain the world's origin and certain natural phenomenons

And when someone came along that told them they were wrong or it was someone else that created the earth, they got silenced.

2. Gave people a moral code so as to not kill themselves

The prehistoric man had morale. A very basic kind of morale so that humankind fortunately survived. They didn't have a priest saying that some man with a long beard in the sky created thunder and lightning.

3. Encouraged the development of art, culture, philosophical thinking, literature, etc.

Only if it had something to do with what they were constantly saying to people. Anything else was not done and was punished.

So... today, everything the state says (The Constitution) isn't law? (funny story: it is)

Today you have a saying in what happens in your country. It's democracy. You have the freedom of defending yourself or telling what you want. You have the right to get a trial (funny, again a law).

No it isn't. It's a part of our moral code. If you took a newborn baby and abandon it in the jungle to be raised by animals, it wouldn't know that killing is bad. Humans aren't born with morals. We learn morals from other people, from our parents, from school, from... religion?

Because it would connect killing with survival. As I said above, it depends on the situation you live in.

How do you explain that? If it's human nature not to kill ourselves, why DO we kill ourselves?

Ooooh so many reasons, religion being on of the many. Our morale isn't perfect. It constantly changes and adapts. Like I said, knowing that killing somebody isn't necessarily a good thing, doesn't mean you can't kill. Anyone can kill. You, me, Dupree. Anyone. Our constant greed to have more, to survive, to have power, to dominate, ...

Ever stop to wonder why all religions advocate almost the same basic principles as the 10 Commandments? Why they are all so similar?

Ever wondered why the first one is always that you WILL NOT believe in another god and that his words are always right?

Before you had your "common sense" to guide you, people used religion for that very purpose.

People could think before there was religion.

Education is the keyword here, not state or religion.

And education should be under the influence of the state, and not the main religion in that country. It should be based on science and facts.

I don't understand how you can make a bad thing out of religion and not at all blame society at the same time. Because todays society is lacking, too.

And I never claimed anything else.

Most, if not all of the time you can not blame the religion for it, but the people.

Because most religious core messages are about picking flowers and bringing peace? Yes I know that people also use it as a tool to justify their personal actions.

Yet my own choice - and many others like myself - are forgotten, yet I too pay taxes, I too work, I too pay for social security.

Well I don't think the government should allow any religion. It's kinda impossible with all the bad sectarian communities. But on the other hand I do agree that you should be able to choose to who you pay. I think in Spain and in France they have this system where you can select to which acknowledged religion (or humanitarian companies if you're not religious) that small percentage of your taxes go to. Our system is just plain stupid.

I won't go into the whole pedophile problems the church has in belgium these times cause that's well .. another discussion I guess. But I do agree. I also don't understand how it's possible that we have a new archbishop who says that being gay is a disease like anorexia. Or that aids is basically a punishment for being gay. And that's the sort of guy that represents our country? No thank you.

What seems to escape YOUR attention is the fact that all the things you mentioned here result from people's lack of understanding or bad interpretation of religion, or what they do in the name of religion, not the religion itself. Religion in and of itself is good. It's the people that interpret it in bad ways that makes it bad.

It wasn't bad interpretation, it's what those religions advertised themselves. It wasn't Joe the farmer that did bad things in the name of god.

You seem to have a personal grudge against religion since you refuse to believe it actually does anyone any good.

I'll never say religion never did anything good (and I don't think drizdt will either).

Maybe people back then actually believed illness was a punishment and intervening with destiny was wrong? It was a medieval society, what do you expect?

And from whom did they get those ideas that it was god punishing them for their sins? No worries, a copper coin or 2 and you're clean again.

Cause cutting open a man with unsanitary tools was such a great idea back then. Gee, maybe the church noticed that people cutting themselves open was kinda making them die, so to protect them they had to forbid it?

So we don't cut them open and just let them die anyway. You didn't cut open anyone because the body was a holy vessel. You can't deny that religion held back surgery. They still do.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Led ++ They didn't have a government? Sure it's not the sort of democratic society we have now, but they did have a government. Lead by the ones claiming to act in the word of god. And you just didn't question that. Not if you wanted to live.

Hey, if it kept people from stealing from each other, I'm cool.

Like I said, religion is a form of crowd control. Good or bad. Unfortunately democracy hadn't been around at the time, so the "government" had to use other means of subduing the masses, like oppression. Good or bad, it worked didn't it?

All those things weren't available for Joe the farmer because he was just a cheap/poor workforce. Constantly getting told everything would be alright once he get's into heaven where everyone is equal. The one who did actually benefit were once again the people with lots of money who could literally buy their way in, or the people who studied the word of god. They were the ones getting education (again, the word of god, nothing more), medical care, ... And who got to go to school? Not Joe the farmer or his 20 kids. With some luck some priest came to him and told him how wonderful god is and that he has a plan for everyone etc. In the meanwhile the educated could just profit more and keep the power. Great and at the same time you couldn't doubt the one they called god. Help the poor? The church made a great deal of money from the poor yeah. Keeping people stupid but "comfortable" at the same time.

Oh wow, so you mean in that time... life was unfair?! How DARE they! They should have totally invented democracy sooner. Where was Obama when you needed him?!

Stop trying to pitch the blame on God by the way. God didn't say that you had to pay for education and care. The Church did. Learn to spot the difference between what religion actually tells you and what things other people do "in the name of religion".

And what about all the non-believers? They have this void in their life? No. They live a normal life like anyone else. There are communities of every kind if type, religion is just one of many. I don't act like a douchebag and I don't need to have someone (especially a jealous god) to tell me not to act like a douchebag. The state does tell em not to act like a douchebag, it's called the law. Does that mean in society there won't be douchebags? Ofcourse not, that's exactly the same with religion. You make it sound that if someone religious tells you not to act like a douchebag you wont act like one.

Argue all you want on the matter but this in not just my opinion. This is a thesis developed by Tocqueville in the 19th century. You know, a person that actually did some sort of research and didn't just blindly spill his opinion on an internet forum. Argue all you want with him, but he's kinda dead so that would be unfair.

A state should make you feel like a community, you and me are both part of a community, it's called .. the state.

Uh, no. The fact that we're both from the same state does not mean we're a community. The fact that I walk past people on the street does not make them part of my community. The state doesn't tell me to go out and make friends. To be nice to people beyond what their human rights require. These things I had to learn on my own, from different persons and entities, yes, one of them being religion.

No moral in the state? Didn't you say they all used the ten commandments? It's intelligence and experience that makes morality. And morality is dependent on the position you live in. Your morale would be very different if you lived in one of the execution camps during WW2. Do you think religious people wouldn't kill or steal in conditions that aren't perfect. Ofcourse they would, because they're human. Just like everybody else. And it's that humanity that makes our morale, be it by believing what your god has written on 2 stone tables, or be it your own experience, intelligence, ...

There's a difference between moral as basic human rights (life, private property, etc) and moral as stuff that influence your everyday decisions. You choose whether or not you should cheat on your girlfriend, it's not the state that makes you do it. You choose to troll people on internet forums, it's not something the state can and should definitely NOT be able to regulate (cause then we'd be in all sorts of oppressive societies again and who hasn't had enough of that?).

Intelligence makes morality, but what about non-intelligent people that can't go to school. Like, for example in underdeveloped countries? Who's gonna teach them and their parents what's moral and not?

Of course people adapt to the environments they live in, and that's a good thing. I never claimed otherwise. Religion also adapts to the environment. Religion practices in Asia are different than those in Europe for instance. Don't forget that Christianism is not the only religion on the planet. There are only like a few thousand more. Some of them "adapted" from mainstream religions, according to people and society's needs.

Which brings me back to my first post and that thing I posted about religion filling a void in society that is not filled by other means such as education, the state, etc.

And just to be clear... in the last part of your post, you actually agree with me don't ya?

You don't choose a morale, it develops.

Of course you can. I can choose the Buddhist moral tomorrow if I wanted to. Who's gonna stop me?

Which basically means you don't need religion to have a good morale. And a religious morale doesn't guarantee no stealing, killing, raping, dancing naked in a fire, etc.

You seem to forget that not everyone on the planet lives in a democratic society, has access to medical and social care and to higher education. Yes, in some parts of the planet, religion is the ONLY thing that keeps people relatively organized in a society.

If you don't personally feel the need to be religious, that's fine. But maybe other people do.

Oh come on. People (rleigious and non religious) have ALWAYS been fascinated by phenomenons they could not understand. And we will always be fascinated as we have a natural desire of understanding things. This is nothing t hat religion gave us, it's build in our brains.

Well, yeah. And the outcome of that was that a new religion was born. Exactly how did you prove me wrong?

Maybe some people are content with understanding nature as God's creation.

You say religion gave life a meaning, thus that also means you know the meaning of life. I would certainly like to know what the meaning of life is. If anything it forced their meaning of life onto other people.

I didn't say it gave MY life a meaning, or yours. It gave life a meaning for SOME people.

What was that thing again about people having different opinions?

Also, make no mistake, I'm talking about modern day religion here. The one that doesn't kill you if you didn't obey. You know, as a form of crowd control.

Religion indeed helped develop art and culture. Ofcourse when you only allow people to make 'god' inspired culture people would have to believe you're telling the truth yes?

That was the sound of my point passing right over your head.

PS - the evil church of the middle ages is not the only form of religion out there.

Huge amounts of men and women have been killed because they didn't agree and wrote/painted/whatever something that wasn't right in the vision of religion.

How sad

Crowd control is crowd control dude, good or bad. Gotta keep that society together.


I could go on like this forever, but I'd just be repeating the same stuff over and over like a broken record.

Religion was and is used either as a form of control over society (predominantly in the past) or as a source of moral code when nothing else provides it (which is mostly the case today).

[Danin]

Originally Posted by Ferous I want to agree with Haylie. Humans are still short of knowing what is outside of our orb we live on, so we should never exclude the idea of a higher being or the thought of evolution. Both could be right, both could be wrong, who knows really. We have come along a far way as a race but we still got a long way to go as a race sadly.

The fact that either of two conditions could be true does not mean that they are equally likely to be true. You are right in that we cannot, in any absolute sense, exclude the possibility that the universe was created by a being of such incomprehensible power that he can suspend the fundamental laws of nature and shape reality at his whim. However, lacking any evidence to the contrary, we can say that such a being's existence is about as likely as the existence a complete sterling silver tea service bearing LeBron James's autograph in geosynchronous orbit around Jupiter.

We can never prove that something we can't detect doesn't exist. This does not mean that we must take the possibility of its existence seriously.

[haylie]

Originally Posted by Danin The fact that either of two conditions could be true does not mean that they are equally likely to be true. You are right in that we cannot, in any absolute sense, exclude the possibility that the universe was created by a being of such incomprehensible power that he can suspend the fundamental laws of nature and shape reality at his whim. However, lacking any evidence to the contrary, we can say that such a being's existence is about as likely as the existence a complete sterling silver tea service bearing LeBron James's autograph in geosynchronous orbit around Jupiter. We can never prove that something we can't detect doesn't exist. This does not mean that we must take the possibility of its existence seriously.

So you're basically saying that it's not logical to believe in God, because essentially there is no reason people should believe in a God since we have no proof that he exists.

See, I have a rather strange take on religion. I consider myself an orthodox, but that's only because I was born in an orthodox family. Now, over the years, I've developed this ability to listen to all the things being thrown at me from religion, science, school, other people, etc. and decide for myself whether it is BS or not, whether it is satisfying or not.

Now, science has told me HOW the universe was created, how life appeared on earth, how the laws of physics function, etc. What it never taught me and never will is WHY. Why was the universe created? Why did we evolve in this way and not another? (dolphin humanoids would have been so cool ) Why are the laws of physics the way they are?

I found the answer to that in religion, or philosophy if you will. I believe there is a higher force out there that decided all these things, be it God, aliens, some mysterious force of the Universe that makes things be the way there are. I believe humans are here to search for that supreme being or concept.

See, for me, science and common sense cannot explain EVERYTHING I need to know about the world I live in. I need religion for my understanding of the world to be complete.

Now how does that prove your post wrong? Well, I for one found a reason to believe in God. Maybe different people have different reasons for believing in what they believe, empirical or not. You cannot judge a person's feelings and beliefs based solely on empirical evidence. You need empirical evidence to state a fact, not an opinion.

[sevti]

Originally Posted by haylie Now how does that prove your post wrong? Well, I for one found a reason to believe in God. Maybe different people have different reasons for believing in what they believe, empirical or not. You cannot judge a person's feelings and beliefs based solely on empirical evidence. You need empirical evidence to state a fact, not an opinion.

As an atheist (apparently a gnostic atheist, according to a link someone posted here), I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said thus far. Others should take this to heart - belief doesn't need the evidence fact does. That's why it's belief.

I could never use lack of scientific evidence as a reason for even my own atheism. It seems too close to closemindedness. I'd rather just not believe because I have other beliefs.

[Petrah]

Originally Posted by sevti I think this "My religion is better"

You totally and completely missed the entire point. Not all that surprising really since a lot of people in this thread are only seeing what they want to see, and not what people are actually saying.