Necessity of having a religion (lolthread?)

[Julian]

Before starting, I just want to point out that I'm a non-denominational Christian.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7qCyvJZam0&feature=feedu


Ok, I'm trying not to bash this guy, so I would like to hear your opinions regarding this subject...

Does the world really need religion? If so, then why? If not, explain further. You can put a spam comment along your constructive opinion :P .


PS: I really had fun watching this video. You'll figure out why.

[Bowie20049]

It's because religion explains why things are right and wrong. If you ever asked yourself if doing something is right or wrong, why is it that way? Is it because of the law, does the law decide your morality? Making your choices based on the law doesn't exactly make you a moral person.

Of course, I'm stupid so someone will probably rebuke this.

[Dabs]

Religion had its purpose at one point in time. I think it had an important role in the development of morals in the world, but in modern times I just don't see the point. I'm generalizing, here, but I think people know what goodness is, and they'll choose to either be good or bad regardless of God or religion.

[lostbookworm]

It's because religion explains why things are right and wrong. If you ever asked yourself if doing something is right or wrong, why is it that way? Is it because of the law, does the law decide your morality? Making your choices based on the law doesn't exactly make you a moral person.

Of course, I'm stupid so someone will probably rebuke this.

Hey look, there's a child there! Let's go run him over, then kidnap him and sell his corpse!

Now if we have to rely on Religion to say this is wrong, then let's all go jump off bridges.

[FayGee]

Hey look, there's a child there! Let's go run him over, then kidnap him and sell his corpse!

Now if we have to rely on Religion to say this is wrong, then let's all go jump off bridges.

You have a point there, but so does Bowie. But neither side is black and white, like everything in this world.

[moisoha]

I'm not sure that the world really NEEDS religion. Now, if anyone were to try and - let's say it this way for fun - abolish religion, I doubt they would be able to because you always get those people who will never give up their religion. I do believe,however, that people need something to believe in. I know there was a study I read about it once, I'll have to see if I can find it again, that says that everyone has to believe in something religiously. For some people it's religion, for others it might be anti-religionism. For others it could be football or other sports. I think that believing in something - and by that I mean kind of trusting in it or something like that - is important.

Alright, spcheel is over.

[Julian]

It's because religion explains why things are right and wrong. If you ever asked yourself if doing something is right or wrong, why is it that way? Is it because of the law, does the law decide your morality? Making your choices based on the law doesn't exactly make you a moral person.

Of course, I'm stupid so someone will probably rebuke this.

Back then, religion didn't really explain the morality of right and wrong, although morality is heavily influenced by this, per say, but rather serve as the basis of society's distribution of roles. The division of classes are based on this, and so is birthright. The king is considered to be next to God. Thus, this person had to rule the countries through the perceived moralities in the Bible (the subjective analysis of the Bible).

However, a more obvious aspect is... it is used to explain the unexplainable. This is how generalisations, prejudices and clichés came to be. The simplification of things through religion has, in a way, facilitated people's lives and has given a façade of harmony and peace. This is counter-intuitive to the point of moralities as 'abnormal' people were excluded from this society. That's not moral at all. And the aftermath effects of these continues to this very day. Just think of racism and homophobia, for example, in atheists. This has 'taught' the mass how to think simply. Some of the subjective analysis of the Bible further perpetuates this fact by making segregation tolerable.

In a sense, religion serves as a relaxing agent.



I'm not sure that the world really NEEDS religion. Now, if anyone were to try and - let's say it this way for fun - abolish religion, I doubt they would be able to because you always get those people who will never give up their religion. I do believe,however, that people need something to believe in. I know there was a study I read about it once, I'll have to see if I can find it again, that says that everyone has to believe in something religiously. For some people it's religion, for others it might be anti-religionism. For others it could be football or other sports. I think that believing in something - and by that I mean kind of trusting in it or something like that - is important.

Alright, spcheel is over.

Yes, I agree that believing into things is not bad. Those who say so are retards. However, do people know when to stop? I'm a Christian myself. However, I am appalled as to how some things are perceived in the community. Truly harrowing.


Religion had its purpose at one point in time. I think it had an important role in the development of morals in the world, but in modern times I just don't see the point. I'm generalizing, here, but I think people know what goodness is, and they'll choose to either be good or bad regardless of God or religion.

No... ancient social morality and philosophy was a basis for Christianity. Morality forms a religion, not the other way around.

[The Enchanted Muggle]

I am also a person of Christian faith but I'm not THAT religious.

Why do people need religion? To give them hope, something to look up to during hard times. And also to guide them through life. Where else are they going to get encouragement?

Religion and I have an on and off relationship. Sometimes I'm glad I have it and sometimes I'm glad NOT to have it. It all depends on the person.

It's because religion explains why things are right and wrong. If you ever asked yourself if doing something is right or wrong, why is it that way? Is it because of the law, does the law decide your morality? Making your choices based on the law doesn't exactly make you a moral person.

Of course, I'm stupid so someone will probably rebuke this.

Good point but isn't that what parents are for? To teach right from wrong? I mean, if they're doing their jobs right, parents usually can teach you what's wrong from what's right.

[Bowie20049]

They can teach you what's right and wrong, but other than "You'll get in trouble", can they teach you why?

/devilsadvocate

[The Enchanted Muggle]

Does religion? Because nowhere in the Bible does it say why drugs are wrong.

[Dabs]

No... ancient social morality and philosophy was a basis for Christianity. Morality forms a religion, not the other way around.

You didn't read what I wrote correctly. Lemme explain.

Christianity served as the basis for the Enlightenment, and subsequently the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and any sort of transition from monarchy to democracy, republic, or a combination of the two. The republican style of government is the most prominent amongst the world's developed (and many underdeveloped) countries in the modern era. Without Christianity there would be no basis for the laws that govern the modern, developed world. Perhaps the type of governments created--democracies, republics, etc.--are based around older ideas, but the actual laws are based on Christian principles. Therefore, Christianity helped in developing the morality.

[Bowie20049]

Does religion? Because nowhere in the Bible does it say why drugs are wrong.

I thought drug use is a form of lust

[lostbookworm]

Does religion? Because nowhere in the Bible does it say why drugs are wrong.

I've watched this thread with interest, and it's my time to shine.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-drugs.html

Not that you should believe anything in the Bible anyway. I mean, you heard of this here guy called Jesus? Man, they must have been high when writing this book. Walking on water?

/thedevilhimself

[FayGee]

Good point but isn't that what parents are for? To teach right from wrong? I mean, if they're doing their jobs right, parents usually can teach you what's wrong from what's right.

Well you certainly brought up an easily refutable argument!
Off the top of my head I can thing of two reasons why parents aren't good enough, and I'm sure that I could think of more if I wasn't so lazy. :rolleyes:
1. Where do parents get their idea of right and wrong from?
2. What if someone doesn't have parents? Or their parents don't discipline them? It's not difficult to imagine many more similar scenarios!

[Julian]

You didn't read what I wrote correctly. Lemme explain.

Christianity served as the basis for the Enlightenment, and subsequently the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and any sort of transition from monarchy to democracy, republic, or a combination of the two. The republican style of government is the most prominent amongst the world's developed (and many underdeveloped) countries in the modern era. Without Christianity there would be no basis for the laws that govern the modern, developed world. Perhaps the type of governments created--democracies, republics, etc.--are based around older ideas, but the actual laws are based on Christian principles. Therefore, Christianity helped in developing the morality.

No, all these movements were influenced by religion, for religion was considered to be the laws of the time. In no way is religion a basis for these.

And the French revolution? I speak and live near France and I studied French history. I assure you that religion is not a basis of democracy, but rather the fall of it is. Democracy existed long before Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

[Bowie20049]

Well you certainly brought up an easily refutable argument!
Off the top of my head I can thing of two reasons why parents aren't good enough, and I'm sure that I could think of more if I wasn't so lazy. :rolleyes:
1. Where do parents get their idea of right and wrong from?
2. What if someone doesn't have parents? Or their parents don't discipline them? It's not difficult to imagine many more similar scenarios!

straw man argument. No need to answer.

[Dabs]

No, all these movements were influenced by religion, for religion was considered to be the laws of the time. In no way is religion a basis for these.

And the French revolution? I speak and live near France and I studied French history. I assure you that religion is not a basis of democracy, but rather the fall of it is. Democracy existed long before Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

I can't agree with that. Religion may have been part of the law at the time, but the Enlightenment thinkers stood radically against the law while still maintaining strong ties to religion. If you've ever read John Locke's Treatises of Government you'll know that he used religion to debunk the ruling monarchies.

And yes, I'd have to agree that religion is the downfall of democracy, however, we should note that no genuine democracy exists in the modern state. There are either republics or democratic republics in the modern, developed world. Both of those governments can thrive having been based on religion.

The French Revolution may not have been based directly on religion, but it was inspired by the Enlightenment.

[Julian]

I can't agree with that. Religion may have been part of the law at the time, but the Enlightenment thinkers stood radically against the law while still maintaining strong ties to religion. If you've ever read John Locke's Treatises of Government you'll know that he used religion to debunk the ruling monarchies.


Yes, but the fundamental basis of the enlightenment is to mobilise reason and promote critical thinking, all the while opposing against the intolerances and abuses of the church and the state. Religion was used to counter the arguments of the church and the state. You just said it yourself, 'debunk'. If religion did not exist as a powerful entity, this revolt would not have happened.

Hmmm...and about Locke... you do know that he believed in religious tolerance. Thus, even though religious, his works are based on critical thinking and philosophy that is more based on critical thinking than Christianity. He even states that the uniformity of a religion only causes disorder, which deviates from 'standard' religious philosophy.

He, as well as others, may have had strong ties with their religion. However, to debunk ruling monarchies, research and critical thinking were used. Not their religious beliefs. An atheist person can do the same, and they do not have to be religious.

[Dabs]

Yes, but the fundamental basis of the enlightenment is to mobilise reason and promote critical thinking, all the while opposing against the intolerances and abuses of the church and the state. Religion was used to counter the arguments of the church and the state. You just said it yourself, 'debunk'. If religion did not exist as a powerful entity, this revolt would not have happened.

Hmmm...and about Locke... you do know that he believed in religious tolerance. Thus, even though religious, his works are based on critical thinking and philosophy that is more based on critical thinking than Christianity. He even states that the uniformity of a religion only causes disorder, which deviates from 'standard' religious philosophy.

He, as well as others, may have had strong ties with their religion. However, to debunk ruling monarchies, research and critical thinking were used. Not their religious beliefs. An atheist person can do the same, and they do not have to be religious.

Everything you said I agree with. I don't see how you're countering what I was saying. lol It sounds more like you're agreeing with me. Were it not for religion, the Enlightenment wouldn't have happened. That's what I've been saying.

I don't understand what you're getting at, really. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they don't believe in tolerance. I know Locke believed in tolerance, because it's his ideas that influenced the first clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I don't know why you're concluding that I think being religious=being intolerant, because I don't think that at all.

But I think that Locke's critical thinking stemmed from his religious beliefs, and while yes, atheists can think critically (I am an atheist; I should know), I think that Locke's specific beliefs, the utopia he was aiming for, was based on his religious philosophy. I don't believe that he separated critical thinking from religion. I mean, he was a protestant; that's part of how protestantism works. It's a highly intellectual subsection of Christianity that embraces the mixing of education, critical thinking, and spirituality/religiousness.

[Julian]

Everything you said I agree with. I don't see how you're countering what I was saying. lol It sounds more like you're agreeing with me. Were it not for religion, the Enlightenment wouldn't have happened. That's what I've been saying.

I don't understand what you're getting at, really. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they don't believe in tolerance. I know Locke believed in tolerance, because it's his ideas that influenced the first clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I don't know why you're concluding that I think being religious=being intolerant, because I don't think that at all.

But I think that Locke's critical thinking stemmed from his religious beliefs, and while yes, atheists can think critically (I am an atheist; I should know), I think that Locke's specific beliefs, the utopia he was aiming for, was based on his religious philosophy. I don't believe that he separated critical thinking from religion. I mean, he was a protestant; that's part of how protestantism works. It's a highly intellectual subsection of Christianity that embraces the mixing of education, critical thinking, and spirituality/religiousness.

What I mean is that religion does not act as a basis but rather a great influence. Yes, the Enlightenment would not have existed without religion, but if religion did not exist, and thus a different type of government, these things would still happen. The consequences this period would still happen if religion didn't exist.

And no, I do not mean that you can't be tolerant if you're religious, but rather that Locke wasn't using religion as a basis in his works, but rather concrete ideas which could affect religious people and atheists in an equal manner. I mean, do you think that economics is based on religion?

Finally, I'm religious.


EDIT:

Also, this thread is about the need for a religion. The Enlightenment, the protests against the monarchy and all that shiizam further antagonise religion. It does not play well in its favour, despite the intellectual movement during the Enlightenment.

[Georgy]

If you think you don't believe; if you believe you don't have to think. It would be no good for the world if all population gonna think abstractly. I should say more. The population is doomed without religion. It will go mad absolutely.l

[Julian]

If you think you don't believe; if you believe you don't have to think. It would be no good for the world if all population gonna think abstractly. I should say more. The population is doomed without religion. It will go mad absolutely.l



Hmmm... I can't help but wholeheartedly agree with this. In the end, I think that religion itself IS politics. I can't be arsed to explain myself further, but Imma mention that it's similar in the way it controls the masses and divides them.


if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men -- governors and legislators -- the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.


By Frederick Bastiat




Everyone should read this book, extremely interesting.

The Law

by Frederick Bastiat

(http://jim.com/bastiat.htm)

[Dabs]

What I mean is that religion does not act as a basis but rather a great influence. Yes, the Enlightenment would not have existed without religion, but if religion did not exist, and thus a different type of government, these things would still happen. The consequences this period would still happen if religion didn't exist.

And no, I do not mean that you can't be tolerant if you're religious, but rather that Locke wasn't using religion as a basis in his works, but rather concrete ideas which could affect religious people and atheists in an equal manner. I mean, do you think that economics is based on religion?

Finally, I'm religious.


EDIT:

Also, this thread is about the need for a religion. The Enlightenment, the protests against the monarchy and all that shiizam further antagonise religion. It does not play well in its favour, despite the intellectual movement during the Enlightenment.

I understand what you're saying. He's using concepts that aren't tied in with religion, but is filtering them through a religious scope. I fervently believe that Locke's economic policies were also influence by his religion. I mean, his religion was a part of his philosophy--it didn't exist in a separate bubble. His philosophy would influence his view on economics, and while, perhaps, the specific, technical aspects of his economic philosophy are not influenced by religion, his overall policy is.