Do we still need religion?

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.

Not really.

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

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

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.

[QUOTE="harashawn"]I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.MetalDogGear

[QUOTE="MetalDogGear"][QUOTE="harashawn"]I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.brucewayne69

religion was created to explain the unexplainable.

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

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

[QUOTE="MetalDogGear"][QUOTE="harashawn"]I don't see how science nullifies religion in any way.brucewayne69

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.

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).

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.

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

BossPerson

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

Making up their own minds about the world around them? Guess that means we have to throw out science as well....LJS9502_basic

Well, I certainly don't need it.

[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

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

Then you aren't saying to make up their own mind. I wish you'd make up yours.LJS9502_basic

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

[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

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

SirWander

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

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

LJS9502_basic

making up their own minds about the world around them.Zeviander

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

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

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

GreySeal9

making up their own minds about the world around them.Zeviander

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

[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

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

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.

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

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

GreySeal9

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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

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

What car is that? It also looks like a Mastretta MXT, but I know it's not just by looking at it.Fightingfan

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

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.

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.