Do we still need religion?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -

Religion can divide people or bring them together. It can help those who are in tough times and help one discover themselves.

 

But the question today is, with modern advances in science, is religion still needed today?

 

Or should we dismiss it as a relic of the old.

#3 Posted by harashawn (27599 posts) -
I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.
#4 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

Not really.

#5 Posted by brucewayne69 (2859 posts) -
We don't need anything We don't need televisions We don't need computers No reason why we can't have them. No reason why we can't have religion
#6 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -
I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.harashawn
just think for a second about how religions developed in the first place
#7 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.harashawn
Well, the point I was getting at rather, was that Religion in general was created to get an understanding at the world around us. Why we're here and all. I know some religions have adapted to co-exist with science, but the general point was about religion in general, generally speaking.
#8 Posted by nooblet69 (5162 posts) -

Many people still need it.  I can see it being especially important in less fortunate nations where the people have barely anything.  Personally, I like some of the ancient teachings but never took them too seriously.

#9 Posted by brucewayne69 (2859 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"]I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.MetalDogGear
Well, the point I was getting at rather, was that Religion in general was created to get an understanding at the world around us. Why we're here and all. I know some religions have adapted to co-exist with science, but the general point was about religion in general, generally speaking.

Religion was created to worship the God they believed in Religion is an organized set of practices and beliefs Not an explanation of the world
#10 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

[QUOTE="MetalDogGear"][QUOTE="harashawn"]I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.brucewayne69
Well, the point I was getting at rather, was that Religion in general was created to get an understanding at the world around us. Why we're here and all. I know some religions have adapted to co-exist with science, but the general point was about religion in general, generally speaking.

Religion was created to worship the God they believed in Religion is an organized set of practices and beliefs Not an explanation of the world

creating the god they believed in (religion) came before they believed in that god

religion was created to explain the unexplainable.

#11 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
I think most people need religion. Religion is a placebo for the mind. Adults need something to rationalize their existence, and they also need something to look forward too so they don't feel useless, or minuscule.
#12 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -

Many people still need it.  I can see it being especially important in less fortunate nations where the people have barely anything.  Personally, I like some of the ancient teachings but never took them too seriously.

nooblet69

In my opinion, I don't think that's entirely healthy.

 

I mean, if I believed in a God that didn't help me get out of my situation, I'd be pretty disappointed.

#13 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
[QUOTE="MetalDogGear"][QUOTE="harashawn"]I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.brucewayne69
Well, the point I was getting at rather, was that Religion in general was created to get an understanding at the world around us. Why we're here and all. I know some religions have adapted to co-exist with science, but the general point was about religion in general, generally speaking.

Religion was created to worship the God they believed in Religion is an organized set of practices and beliefs Not an explanation of the world

Look at every mythology though. Norse Mythology - It explains how the universe and man came into being Egyptian Mythology - Same thing Greek Mythology - Practically has a God for every single force in existence And I do think that religion's foundations are set upon a need to explain natural phenomena around the world. Worshiping these Gods is just a side-effect
#14 Posted by mindstorm (15242 posts) -
You seem to make assumptions regarding the use of religion. Is religion simply a way to be moral? Is religion simply a crutch to get through life with? None of this is the answer. If Jesus truly was the Son of God and raised from the dead then religion does something that any human advancement can never do. Jesus came with a purpose: to reconcile men with God. We are enemies of God who rightfully deserve nothing but a traitor's death. However, God in his mercy sent his son to die that death so that we might gain life. Science can cure diseases but only Jesus raises people from the dead.
#15 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.harashawn

Religion was often used as an explanation as to how the world works, the hierarchical position of God, man, beast, and scum. Various religions have various world creation myths, reasons for why meteorological phenomenons happen, and other harebrained reason for why stuff happens.

"Science" tends to contradict most of what "religion" claims to be axiomatic.

Example: Is the solar system Heliocentric or Geocentric?




Well, if you're not an idiot you should of picked Heliocentric.


"Science" or rather the scientific method seeks to provide explanations as to how the universe operates that is independent of supernatural means. By removing "god" you are decreasing the importance of how such a being operates in the universe. There have been reasonable explanations as to the apparent absence of god, though that shouldn't be taken as evidence of there being one in the first place.

#16 Posted by The__Kraken (851 posts) -

Religion is unnecessary. Faith, a component of religion and other beliefs, is still necessary (and may be necessary forever, depending on "version" of faith you look at).

#17 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

We are enemies of God who rightfully deserve nothing but a traitor's death.mindstorm

Why Would God create his own enemies? How are we in any way a threat to such a being?

However, God in his mercy sent his son to die that death so that we might gain life. Science can cure diseases but only Jesus raises people from the dead.mindstorm

How nice of God to do so... but isn't the point of the Earthly existence to steel our souls into something that can be garnered favorable to gain entry into the kingdom of Heaven? How much of a sacrifice was it for the son of God when his death meant an automatic entry into Heaven?

Read Frankenstein, good book.

#18 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -
Don't you have anything better to do than troll religion?
#19 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

#20 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

BossPerson
What?
#21 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

LJS9502_basic
What?

idk...... ill get used to it eventually im sure
#22 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

BossPerson
What?

idk...... ill get used to it eventually im sure

If the band would stay the same.....
#23 Posted by GreySeal9 (23974 posts) -

It's not an issue of "needing" religion. As long as people still want to practice it, it should stay.

#24 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
No. Although I feel I should clarify. The human race still needs it's ritual, it's symbolism and it's emotional catharsis. It just doesn't need organized religious bodies telling their followers what to believe, rather than them making up their own minds about the world around them.
#25 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]You seem to make assumptions regarding the use of religion. Is religion simply a way to be moral? Is religion simply a crutch to get through life with? None of this is the answer. If Jesus truly was the Son of God and raised from the dead then religion does something that any human advancement can never do. Jesus came with a purpose: to reconcile men with God. We are enemies of God who rightfully deserve nothing but a traitor's death. However, God in his mercy sent his son to die that death so that we might gain life. Science can cure diseases but only Jesus raises people from the dead.

If we don't need religion as a crutch, or a way to be moral. Then what will we use it for?
#26 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]No. Although I feel I should clarify. The human race still needs it's ritual, it's symbolism and it's emotional catharsis. It just doesn't need organized religious bodies telling their followers what to believe, rather than them making up their own minds about the world around them.

Making up their own minds about the world around them? Guess that means we have to throw out science as well....
#27 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Making up their own minds about the world around them? Guess that means we have to throw out science as well....LJS9502_basic
Don't be silly. Science is based on an evaluation of reality as it exists in front of us. One need not have a "mind" to "make up" about it, it's a toolset for understanding the mechanics of the universe. And I didn't say "throw out religion". I said "throw out religious institution". You be trollin' hard tonight.
#28 Posted by TAMKFan (32717 posts) -

Well, I certainly don't need it.

#29 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Making up their own minds about the world around them? Guess that means we have to throw out science as well....Zeviander
Don't be silly. Science is based on an evaluation of reality as it exists in front of us. One need not have a "mind" to "make up" about it, it's a toolset for understanding the mechanics of the universe. And I didn't say "throw out religion". I said "throw out religious institution". You be trollin' hard tonight.

Then you aren't saying to make up their own mind. I wish you'd make up yours.
#30 Posted by CHOASXIII (14628 posts) -

Do we still need that extra bagel in the morning when we know we are on a diet? 

#31 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Then you aren't saying to make up their own mind. I wish you'd make up yours.LJS9502_basic
*head starts to spin* Are you drunk? I can barely follow your point here. Well, no, I don't see any point at all.
#32 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

LJ seems to believe the transitive properties of subjective observations apply to objective facts. 

#33 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Making up their own minds about the world around them? Guess that means we have to throw out science as well....Zeviander
Don't be silly. Science is based on an evaluation of reality as it exists in front of us. One need not have a "mind" to "make up" about it, it's a toolset for understanding the mechanics of the universe. And I didn't say "throw out religion". I said "throw out religious institution". You be trollin' hard tonight.

What car is that? It also looks like a Mastretta MXT, but I know it's not just by looking at it.
#34 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -

LJ seems to believe the transitive properties of subjective observations apply to objective facts. 

SirWander
*sigh* Having difficulty reading his words?[QUOTE="Zeviander"] making up their own minds about the world around them.

That basically throws out all education. One can not make up their own mind if they are following the ideas of others. Which is it?
#35 Posted by GreySeal9 (23974 posts) -

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

LJ seems to believe the transitive properties of subjective observations apply to objective facts. 

LJS9502_basic

*sigh* Having difficulty reading his words?
making up their own minds about the world around them.Zeviander
That basically throws out all education. One can not make up their own mind if they are following the ideas of others. Which is it?

Subjective ideas and objective facts are two different types of education.

#36 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SirWander"]

LJ seems to believe the transitive properties of subjective observations apply to objective facts. 

GreySeal9

*sigh* Having difficulty reading his words?
making up their own minds about the world around them.Zeviander
That basically throws out all education. One can not make up their own mind if they are following the ideas of others. Which is it?

Subjective ideas and objective facts are two different realms of education.

And yet nowhere in his post did he mention that. He misspoke...nice of you to rush to his defense I guess.
#37 Posted by GreySeal9 (23974 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] *sigh* Having difficulty reading his words?[QUOTE="Zeviander"] making up their own minds about the world around them.LJS9502_basic

That basically throws out all education. One can not make up their own mind if they are following the ideas of others. Which is it?

Subjective ideas and objective facts are two different realms of education.

And yet nowhere in his post did he mention that. He misspoke...nice of you to rush to his defense I guess.

My intention was not to rush to his defense (I don't know why it's even neccessary to go there TBH). What I am saying is that there are certain types of education in which one is encouraged to make up one's mind and there are other types of education in which adherence to facts/observable reality is encouraged. Science, while not set in stone, falls more in line with the latter.

#38 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -
"Still?" We never needed it in the first place.
#39 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149955 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Subjective ideas and objective facts are two different realms of education.

GreySeal9

And yet nowhere in his post did he mention that. He misspoke...nice of you to rush to his defense I guess.

My intention was not to rush to his defense (I don't know why it's even neccessary to go there TBH). What I am saying is that there are certain types of education in which one is encouraged to make up one's mind and there are other types of education in which adherence to facts/observable reality is encouraged. Science, while not set in stone, falls more in line with the latter.

I'm aware...but he didn't say that.
#40 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

mhm, seems confusing.

But these are testable, or rather fallible observations. They provide a good foundation, are meant to be questioned, and lastly inspire others to conduct their own research. They are tools to better understand the universe; not dogmatic unlike religion. If you can prove a theory wrong, like say the theory of evolution, then others will not simply accept it. The steps one undertook to reach a conclusion that is contrariwise to an established theory will be put under heavy scrutiny.

but there are things we can observe that are objective. Picking up a rock (while on Earth) and throwing it will yield the same results, no matter how many times you throw it; it will fall back down, that is thanks to gravity. The heliocentric nature of the solar system is also something that won't change, no matter how many times you look at it.

#41 Posted by GreySeal9 (23974 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And yet nowhere in his post did he mention that. He misspoke...nice of you to rush to his defense I guess.LJS9502_basic

My intention was not to rush to his defense (I don't know why it's even neccessary to go there TBH). What I am saying is that there are certain types of education in which one is encouraged to make up one's mind and there are other types of education in which adherence to facts/observable reality is encouraged. Science, while not set in stone, falls more in line with the latter.

I'm aware...but he didn't say that.

He didn't say those exact words, but the only kind of education he mentioned was science. If you agree that science is largely based on adherence to facts/observable reality rather than making up one's mind, I don't see what you two are disagreeing about.

#42 Posted by wis3boi (31003 posts) -

No longer necessary, probably not necessary to begin with at all.

#43 Posted by BowlstoTheFace (19 posts) -

I don't care. I just wish people would stop trying to hold back scientific progress because of religious morals.

#44 Posted by cheese_game619 (13316 posts) -
I mean, if I believed in a God that didn't help me get out of my situation, I'd be pretty disappointed.MetalDogGear
you wouldnt be disappointed youd be dead even if the last second you're alive you're saying 'now i get to go to heaven' its not like you have the chance to realise it never happened you're fvcking dead
#45 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
What car is that? It also looks like a Mastretta MXT, but I know it's not just by looking at it.Fightingfan
Can't recall the year of the in-game version, but it is the Fiat Coupe Turbo 20V. Front wheel drive, I5, 0-60 in 6, 155 mph top speed... often called a "Baby Ferrari". A car I find to be one of, if not the most aesthetically pleasing in existence. Been one of my favorites since I first discovered it in GT2. -- @LJ: Of course you woulda turn this into a semantics debate and argue about *how* someone said something rather than actually get down to brass tacks and get into a meaty discussion.
#46 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
An individual may need religion, but society certainly doesn't need the power structures that grow out of religious beliefs.
#47 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -
An individual may need religion, but society certainly doesn't need the power structures that grow out of religious beliefs.Rhazakna
You know, I think Leo Tolstoy is cool and all, but his Christian anarchist philosophy made no sense whatsoever. You need to tear out some pages out of the Bible in order to believe that it's anti-statist.
#48 Posted by GreySeal9 (23974 posts) -

An individual may need religion, but society certainly doesn't need the power structures that grow out of religious beliefs.Rhazakna

I think this is a good answer.

#49 Posted by edda0199 (26 posts) -

I think we do, if we have our own belief, we can ask us to do better in life.

#50 Posted by LordQuorthon (5263 posts) -

No, not really. What we need is for everyone to have a better understanding of why life is so marvelous and special, and the big three monotheistic religions have failed to do anything remotely close to that. I am incllined to believe that this is not only because of their "organized" institutions, but because they are simply broken. You can twist them and pick and choose as much as you want but, at their core, they are still pretty much broken. They seem to gravitate around concepts like sin and the afterlife, which seem to be exceptionally effective at removing love and kindness from a person's heart and replacing them with fear and hatred.  

I don't know much about Buddhism but, according to Nietzsche, it seems to revolve around the idea of one's own spiritual hygiene and tends to concern itself very, very little with deities and whatnot, making it almost atheistic at its core. If that's the case, that sounds a lot better to me. Then again, some of you  may know more about Buddhism than me and will surely correct me if I'm wrong.