Do we still need religion?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3791 posts) -

no, not really. 

We'll probably be better off without it.

#52 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]An individual may need religion, but society certainly doesn't need the power structures that grow out of religious beliefs.ghoklebutter
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.

To get any consistent message from the bible you need to ignore large chunks of it. I agree that Christian Anarchism isn't very thorough biblically, but the world would be a much better place if more Christians took after Tolstoy as opposed to the Pope or some other religious authority.
#53 Posted by tocool340 (20487 posts) -
IMO no....
#54 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Do we still need religion?

I don't know. Do you still beat your wife?

That's a loaded question. It was never needed. 

#55 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

Religion is still needed by people who have no internal moral compass and need a set of instructions to live.

#56 Posted by lonewolf604 (8517 posts) -

Religion is still needed by people who have no internal moral compass and need a set of instructions to live.

tenaka2
Its not really morality if its out of fear of punishment or reward.
#57 Posted by Celldrax (14565 posts) -

*shrug* I haven't needed it for almost 27 years. But if others find value in it, fair enough.

#58 Posted by Lonelynight (30041 posts) -
yes, there are still too many uneducated people that needs to be controlled.
#59 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Religion is still needed by people who have no internal moral compass and need a set of instructions to live.

lonewolf604

Its not really morality if its out of fear of punishment or reward.

I said a set of instructions for people without morality, my statement represents a dearth of morality.

#60 Posted by LLYNCES (381 posts) -

Humanity will eventually move past religion one day, so I'd say no humanity doesn't need religion. It'll probably never completely go away, but I cant see it being around like it is today in a few hundred years from now. Jesus/Allah will eventually be looked at the same way we look at Zeus, all just mythology right where it belongs.



#61 Posted by Ballroompirate (22555 posts) -

Some people do, while some people don't.

#62 Posted by sukraj (22133 posts) -

no

#63 Posted by TheHighWind (3764 posts) -

We need it now more than ever.

#64 Posted by -eddy- (11443 posts) -
No but homeostasis makes it hard for people to let go.
#65 Posted by themajormayor (25700 posts) -
Not at all
#66 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="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.

GreySeal9

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.

He didn't mention anything about evidence either. His post was sloppy. Stop defending it....
#67 Posted by mindstorm (15242 posts) -
[QUOTE="MetalDogGear"][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?

To clarify my point, if a specific religion is true then we need it, if a religion is not true then we do not need it.
#68 Posted by toast_burner (21449 posts) -

Seeing how people survive perfectly well without religion, no.

#69 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
[QUOTE="cheese_game619"][QUOTE="MetalDogGear"]
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]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.

To get any consistent message from the bible you need to ignore large chunks of it. I agree that Christian Anarchism isn't very thorough biblically, but the world would be a much better place if more Christians took after Tolstoy as opposed to the Pope or some other religious authority.

Anyone would be better than the Pope. Hell, Willy Wonka would be a better role model.
#70 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
[QUOTE="cheese_game619"][QUOTE="MetalDogGear"] 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.

To get any consistent message from the bible you need to ignore large chunks of it. I agree that Christian Anarchism isn't very thorough biblically, but the world would be a much better place if more Christians took after Tolstoy as opposed to the Pope or some other religious authority.

Anyone would be better than the Pope. Hell, Willy Wonka would be a better role model.
An individual may need religion, but society certainly doesn't need the power structures that grow out of religious beliefs.Rhazakna
I like this
#71 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
[QUOTE="MetalDogGear"]I mean, if I believed in a God that didn't help me get out of my situation, I'd be pretty disappointed.cheese_game619
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

I mean, some people blame God for things and they become disappointed that He didn't help them.
#72 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Then again, some of you may know more about Buddhism than me and will surely correct me if I'm wrong.LordQuorthon
I'll just say this, it is very supernaturally-oriented as well. In order for it's ritual and philosophy to work, it requires you accept that reincarnation exists and affects every aspect of life in the universe. Sure, you could "modernize" the belief by saying "energy doesn't get destroyed" but most of the religious teachings revolve around consciousness surviving death. That is the leap of faith it required that I could never make. It's only positive contribution to human life (as opposed to spiritual endeavors) is it's meditative practices that help one control the mind and emotions. However, the general message one gets at first glance of the religion, will be more oriented towards dismissing of the emotions rather than being empowered by them An apt, if extremely crude, analogy would be; Buddhism is like the Jedi, and regular non-theistic/non-religious belief is like the Sith. The former feel all emotion is useless and base, while the latter can see advantages in the control of natural human emotions. I have as much issue with modern religious Buddhism (the kind applied on an institutional level especially) as I do with most other major religions that make substantial faith claims (despite what many "Buddhists" might claim, there is a significant faith aspect that comes with the religion, trust me, I experienced it). Tread lightly and with critical mind.
#73 Posted by MetalDogGear (806 posts) -
[QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]Then again, some of you may know more about Buddhism than me and will surely correct me if I'm wrong.Zeviander
I'll just say this, it is very supernaturally-oriented as well. In order for it's ritual and philosophy to work, it requires you accept that reincarnation exists and affects every aspect of life in the universe. Sure, you could "modernize" the belief by saying "energy doesn't get destroyed" but most of the religious teachings revolve around consciousness surviving death. That is the leap of faith it required that I could never make. It's only positive contribution to human life (as opposed to spiritual endeavors) is it's meditative practices that help one control the mind and emotions. However, the general message one gets at first glance of the religion, will be more oriented towards dismissing of the emotions rather than being empowered by them An apt, if extremely crude, analogy would be; Buddhism is like the Jedi, and regular non-theistic/non-religious belief is like the Sith. The former feel all emotion is useless and base, while the latter can see advantages in the control of natural human emotions. I have as much issue with modern religious Buddhism (the kind applied on an institutional level especially) as I do with most other major religions that make substantial faith claims (despite what many "Buddhists" might claim, there is a significant faith aspect that comes with the religion, trust me, I experienced it). Tread lightly and with critical mind.

This is why I stopped being a deist. I asked myself what my faith was originated in, and I realized that I was only a Deist because I thought "There has to be a creator to have had made all of this" But there's no evidence for it, and so it was basically a leap of faith. And so I'd rather not believe in something until substantial evidence arises. The book, A Universe From Nothing, also helped me with my decision
#74 Posted by osirisx3 (1756 posts) -

Do we need atheism? no.

#75 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

Do we need atheism? no.

osirisx3

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

#76 Posted by FMAB_GTO (14385 posts) -
yes.
#77 Posted by Jd1680a (5921 posts) -
Religion could be a good way to help bring people together in a good way. There are lots of charities, food drives, homeless shelters etc. and their are social clubs that is based by religion. There are plenty of people in religion who have enough flexibility to understand other peoples religion and the science community. The bad part of religion is you can get someone who is power hungry and use it as a way to control people. People will then have one source of information and will attack anyone who they think opposes it. I rather go with the good part of religion.
#78 Posted by osirisx3 (1756 posts) -

 

 

 

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Do we need atheism? no.

tenaka2

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

Nice making up stuff i never said.

i said we dont "need" atheism. That does not mean i am trying to have it ban.

 

 

 

 

#79 Posted by quidy123 (116 posts) -

"Still?" We never needed it in the first place.ghoklebutter

 

i agree with this. i'm not saying that god doesnt exist or that people shouldnt worship him but all religion has done is divide people, cause arguing and cause war. which is probably the furthest thing their god wanted

#80 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

 

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Do we need atheism? no.

osirisx3

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

Nice making up stuff i never said.

i said we dont "need" atheism. That does not mean i am trying to have it ban.

But religion just holds society back.

#81 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Do we need atheism? no.

tenaka2

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

Isn't that the same thing as what the TC said?
#82 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm aware...but he didn't say that.LJS9502_basic

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.

He didn't mention anything about evidence either. His post was sloppy. Stop defending it....

I'll "defend" whatever I want. You really should not care so much about what I "defend". It doesn't really matter.

Anyway, what exactly do you disagree with him about? What is your major issue with his post? Because as far as I can see, you don't really disagree with what he said. If you do agree that science is largely based on adherence to facts/observable reality that is. If you don't agree with that statement, then I can see where you disagree.

#83 Posted by meconate (10476 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

How could you LJ.....

how could you?

LJS9502_basic
What?

Oh my.. a new avy and sig. I thought I was seeing things.
#84 Posted by osirisx3 (1756 posts) -

 

 

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

 

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

tenaka2

Nice making up stuff i never said.

i said we dont "need" atheism. That does not mean i am trying to have it ban.

But religion just holds society back.

Atheism makes things go forward? Why should i listen to leftists? you guys think socialism works!

 

 

 

 

 

#85 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

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

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.

GreySeal9

He didn't mention anything about evidence either. His post was sloppy. Stop defending it....

I'll defend whatever I want. You really should not care so much about what I "defend".

Anyway, what exactly do you disagree with him about? What is your major issue with his post? Because as far as I can see, you don't really disagree with what he said. If you do agree that science is largely based on adherence to facts/observable reality that is. If you don't agree with that statement, then I can see where you disagree.

Sure you can defend sloppy, stupid comments. But if you read his initial post that isn't what he said at all. Only after my post did he create the caveat.

So why exactly are you acting as though that was his stance all along? It wasn't in his post at all. And frankly it's counter to his point about people making up their own minds. In other words.....he doesn't believe that is what people should, in fact, do. He wants them to learn. And frankly......people do make up their own minds about religion as well. And it seems rather ignorant to assume that isn't the case. Anyway....this is not an interesting thing to keep rehashing. Read his first post. Very vague and the only ideology he expressed was individuals and their own personal opinion. It's a reach to believe his FIRST post said anything about science etc.

#86 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

 

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

tenaka2

Nice making up stuff i never said.

i said we dont "need" atheism. That does not mean i am trying to have it ban.

But religion just holds society back.

That's a rather odd statement to make since throughout history people were religious and we seemed to have progress.
#87 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

 

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So you would remove freedom of choice then?

tenaka2

Nice making up stuff i never said.

i said we dont "need" atheism. That does not mean i am trying to have it ban.

But religion just holds society back.

Even if it did, that is no reason to ban it, especially if you value "freedom of choice."

 

 

#88 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

Nice making up stuff i never said.

i said we dont "need" atheism. That does not mean i am trying to have it ban.

GreySeal9

But religion just holds society back.

Even if it did, that is no reason to ban it, especially if you value "freedom of choice."

 

 

Freedom of choice only applies when people think as he does.:P
#89 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

I don't think it's needed anymore, I get by just fine without religion. But if people want to believe in silly mythologies that's their choice

#90 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]He didn't mention anything about evidence either. His post was sloppy. Stop defending it....LJS9502_basic

I'll defend whatever I want. You really should not care so much about what I "defend".

Anyway, what exactly do you disagree with him about? What is your major issue with his post? Because as far as I can see, you don't really disagree with what he said. If you do agree that science is largely based on adherence to facts/observable reality that is. If you don't agree with that statement, then I can see where you disagree.

Sure you can defend sloppy, stupid comments. But if you read his initial post that isn't what he said at all. Only after my post did he create the caveat.

So why exactly are you acting as though that was his stance all along? It wasn't in his post at all. And frankly it's counter to his point about people making up their own minds. In other words.....he doesn't believe that is what people should, in fact, do. He wants them to learn. And frankly......people do make up their own minds about religion as well. And it seems rather ignorant to assume that isn't the case. Anyway....this is not an interesting thing to keep rehashing. Read his first post. Very vague and the only ideology he expressed was individuals and their own personal opinion. It's a reach to believe his FIRST post said anything about science etc.

Yes, this is not an interesting thing to be going back and forth about, but that's mostly because there's not that much disagreement. It's mainly an issue of semantics.

I wasn't talking about his first post. I was talking about his second, which clearly mentioned science, and which was the focal point of my response to you. Basically, he was responding to you saying that we should throw out science by his logic. His response was that science doesn't pertain to that logic because it's a toolset rather than an ideology. Do you disagree with that?

And if you want to talk about his first post, he doesn't say that all religious people don't make up their own minds. He says that they should make up their own minds without religious instiutions telling them what to believe.

I understand how Zeviander comes off much of the time, but I really don't see the issue here.

#91 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

I don't think it's needed anymore, I get by just fine without religion. But if people want to believe in silly mythologies that's their choice

Bane_09
Why are atheists (majority of them in OT anyway) intolerant?
#92 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But religion just holds society back.

LJS9502_basic

Even if it did, that is no reason to ban it, especially if you value "freedom of choice."

 

 

Freedom of choice only applies when people think as he does.:P

tenaka is really daft about anything concerning religion.

It's not enough for him to just not believe in religion and think that it has some adverse effects, he has to always get really stupid about it.

#93 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But religion just holds society back.

LJS9502_basic

Even if it did, that is no reason to ban it, especially if you value "freedom of choice."

 

 

Freedom of choice only applies when people think as he does.:P

This, anyone can be religious once they follow odinism (cause its cool) all the rest must be forgotten :P

#94 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

I don't think it's needed anymore, I get by just fine without religion. But if people want to believe in silly mythologies that's their choice

LJS9502_basic

Why are atheists (majority of them in OT anyway) intolerant?

Some of the athiests here are d!cks, but I don't see anything wrong with someone thinking of religion as silly or mythological. That's simply how it comes off to some people.

#95 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

I don't think it's needed anymore, I get by just fine without religion. But if people want to believe in silly mythologies that's their choice

LJS9502_basic

Why are atheists (majority of them in OT anyway) intolerant?

I am not intolerant, I tolerate religion everyday. I am still entitled to my opinion that religion is silly. 

#96 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

tenaka is really daft about anything concerning religion.

It's not enough for him to just not believe in religion and think that it has some adverse effects, he has to always get really stupid about it.

GreySeal9

Oh hush, I don't think religion should be banned.

However I am not a fan of ancient religious dogmatic views being used to determine current laws and education.

#97 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

tenaka is really daft about anything concerning religion.

It's not enough for him to just not believe in religion and think that it has some adverse effects, he has to always get really stupid about it.

tenaka2

Oh hush, I don't think religion should be banned.

However I am not a fan of ancient religious dogmatic views being used to determine current laws and education.

The way that you responded to his post indicates that you think it is okay to ban religion because it holds society back. He said that he doesn't think that athiesm should be banned even though society doesn't need it and then you said "But religion holds society back."

If it was anybody else, I would just assume they didn't want to ban religion, but since you're so continually ridiculous about these issues and your post does indicate that you at the very least think it's okay to ban religion, I made the most natural assumption.

#98 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150338 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bane_09"]

I don't think it's needed anymore, I get by just fine without religion. But if people want to believe in silly mythologies that's their choice

Bane_09

Why are atheists (majority of them in OT anyway) intolerant?

I am not intolerant, I tolerate religion everyday. I am still entitled to my opinion that religion is silly. 

Sometimes opinions should not be broadcast.
#99 Posted by tenaka2 (17019 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

tenaka is really daft about anything concerning religion.

It's not enough for him to just not believe in religion and think that it has some adverse effects, he has to always get really stupid about it.

GreySeal9

Oh hush, I don't think religion should be banned.

However I am not a fan of ancient religious dogmatic views being used to determine current laws and education.

The way that you responded to his post indicates that you think it is okay to ban religion because it holds society back. He said that he doesn't think that athiesm should be banned even though society doesn't need it and then you said "But religion holds society back."

If it was anybody else, I would just assume they didn't want to ban religion, but since you're so continually ridiculous about these issues and your post does indicate that you at the very least think it's okay to ban religion, I made the most natural assumption.

Well for the record I do not think religion should be banned, however I think it should not influence modern day decisions regarding laws and politics. Some are worse then others, I find the Islamic treatment of women to be horrific and the catholics view on safe sex to be irresponsible. 

However there are positive sides to religion also.

#100 Posted by Bane_09 (3394 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Why are atheists (majority of them in OT anyway) intolerant?LJS9502_basic

I am not intolerant, I tolerate religion everyday. I am still entitled to my opinion that religion is silly. 

Sometimes opinions should not be broadcast.

Hey I feel the same way about many religious person's opinions but I don't tell them not to share.

I assure you, there are much more vile things I could say about religion but am not. I thought silly was a pretty mild term, especially compared to what a lot of users here say.