Theist or Atheist?

[Anoebis]

 

i am convinced they are universal things. i guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

I think that is weird... There are a huge amount of books that proof there is no such things as universal values. Let me explain:

 

To search for univeral values, you need to find different communities who were never in touch with eachother. So let's go back to 1500, when Spain discovered the Americas.

 

Which universal values did you find there? To give some examples: humans were sacrificed, girls were kidnapped by tribes to have new "offspring", parents were killed once they couldn't work anymore, people couldn't even look at the kings because they were too holy... Also, some priests lived exclusively on human meat.

 

That culture was total different from ours, far away from our values...!

 

I can give you more examples... Samoa, Papua, Amazonia, middle Africa,... read books, you'll see

 

What is interesting. Once our values (based on the bible/ten commandments) started to spread, they became accepted in most parts of the world because of the colonies. Now that they are part of most cultures, they became "at once" universal values.

 

yes of course it was rubbish, but at least they were looking for rational explanations and acknowledged the plants used in folk medicine. it's still better than praying for a cure (in most cases anyway ).

Woow, but here you are not right. There are loads of books written by monks with the healing capacities of plants. The most famous is Hildegard von Bingen. This mystical nun had a huge encyclopedia about healing plants... And she probably had her visions while using Datura by the way. That is one of the big mis-understandings of mediëval times... very cliché. Everyone thinks they were dumb, but they were not, in the opposite, they started with our modern medicines!

Of course they prayed for health if the disease was unknown or not be found, but modern people do that too.

 

surely the monestaries were the places where you'd find educated people and where all the preservation and expansion of knowledge happened. still the arabic world became a more important place for 'science' in the middle ages at some point in time and (now, i'm really going onto thin ice considering you're much more knowlegdable about history as i am ; you'll probably correct me but anyway...) the transformation of our society into what we know today and the rapid scientific advances happened only after (during, around?) the enlightenment when religion lost a great deal of its importance and the church's claims to have the answers to everything seemed more and more absurd (which probably was a gradual process starting earlier).

Interesting. You are right at a certain moment the Arabic world was more scientific... Mostly the 8-11th century. And there it stopped. After that the mediëval Christian culture took over.

 

The rapid change in science is a relatively slow evolution, it took hundreds of years... not caused by enlightment, but the search for truth. As written in my last post to Tatsu, this has to do with the beg-monks, who needed to look for right answers while preaching. You need to have a look how many important inventions were made by Domonican & Franciscan monks! It's because they were focused on "truth". (think "in the name of the Rose", a movie of course, but with hints of reality).

 

Once people were more thinking like that, and they realised they had more power then the old school class system, the first revolutions/enlightment came. There everything became faster of course... But at that time Christianity had not a bad, but a good influence on that! The big wave of secularisation started only 50 years ago... Don't forget that

 

Anyway, interesting discussions here

[Anoebis]

Sounds interesting, how long until you got your masters? I find all of history so interesting (since that was the one thing i studied when I was young ever since elementary school). I've recently been interested in some Chinese history.

In Belgium it is 4 or 5 years, depending on subject/course, and 1 year to become a teacher on top of that

[Tatsu]

 

Interesting point. But without christianity there would be no educational system like we have today. Educating in the Roman/Greek times was only for the very rich with a personal teacher. The monastries were the ones that started to have more open schools for everyone that was smart enough (not only the rich!) It was the promotion of the brains... And the big change happened with the beg-monks... Because they had to preach, they needed a VERY good education to talk about religion on the street... They needed an answer for every critical question! There it all started... The search for knowledge instead the preservation of knowledge which happened before. This system is the basis for our modern scientific mind & school system.

Of course you are right that all inventions were made by Christians as everyone was Christian back then... But I mean, all inventions were made by monks or priests. Not just regular Christians. (also a side note, in most of the mediëval times not everyone was as Christian as we think... But that's a long story...) For sure this had to do with their background and money, so you are right there anyway. But certain genuises in the mediëval times were NOT rich, not of a high class and managed to be top notch thanks to the "school" system!

 

 

You are right... Of course official Christian channels will be against gay marriage. This is for several religious reasons. But, they don't say you should get killed or anything like that. That's what I mean with the most liberal/free thinking. They will keep their religious ideals, but they don't force you (anymore)! You are a free human being... Which is super important. No other religion is that liberal.

Well, imho it is a bit speculative to say that we wouldn't have the educational system we have now without christianity. Not because the Points you made were wrong but because we can't know what would have happened if something else took the place of a religion. I mean the whole educational system was not done by the church (I'm speaking about the institiution itself, not about the people on the front doing the teaching and similar stuff) only because of the love for god or to push the general public with knowledge but also for, let's call it PR reasons. The church wanted to have followers since they brought them money and also power (the power of having rulers who they schooled so they had christian advisors and like that the church was able to influence politics, but also the power of numbers since having more followers gives you more force). You might say that of course there is always a price to pay and compared to lesser liberal believes we are and were lucky (like with the gay issue). Which is imho true.

 

But imagine a society without the pressure from a church and its idea of god guiding, controlling and punishing people. I mean also now there are Schools still financed from religious institutions. Some really want to help their members knowledge but there are enough who rather want to push their ideas (who are very clearly wrong like the creatonists for example) into the people. You said yourself that an important part was to bring the bible and its believes to the people. What I heard in history classes or read in books myself the church was not that hot about critics and other cultural or schoolaric influences (but you might see that different since your knowledge goes way deeper than mine). Not even from within otherwise the big split up between catholics and protstants weren't necessary. Maybe if the educational system would not have be based on the pr reasons but the true wanting for the people to get educated we might even have a better system or a better world right now?

 

This is also highly speculative of course and as you pointd out with several examples the christian influences had and have their good sides. It's also asked too much from an institution or maybe I should say from people in general to set up something big like an educational system only for unselfish reasons. That's also not what's happening now, even when we are all so educated and rather rich compared to 500 years ago.

 

Which leads to another christian influence I don't like it at all. There is the part in the bible, in the Genesis I think, about making the earth you tributary which is imho directly reflected in the economical systems we have (I have capitalism in my mind but communism in the end was done in the same way). There is talk about it being misstranslated from the original Bible texts and I honestly can't judge that (I bet you can tho ). But either way it reflects human behaviour so much (the want for having power, the idea of taking whatever you want on the cost of others, the idea of being the cream of the crop) that it can't come from a higher diety (imho of course). Sure it is said men were made as god's Counterpart but to me it rather seems god (as in the god promoted by the major religions) was made as men's Counterpart, a.k.a. invented... As you mentioned we are rather well off now with the liberal believes that are common in our part of the world. I am thankfull for that. I still feel like we just have to take the lesser evil. How would Society and we humans be if the base of our world was something based on the respect and love for nature for example. How much knowledge would we've been able to have gained if our focus was different? Again, highly speculative of course and maybe not realistic either.

 

I also like to add that I appreciate your input in the topic. Your combined knowledge about history and religon goes deep and helps me think and rethink my own believes (or non-belives in that case). I hope you take it that just because I have another understanding of religion I still value your point of view.

[Padmapani]

I think that is weird... There are a huge amount of books that proof there is no such things as universal values. Let me explain:

 

To search for univeral values, you need to find different communities who were never in touch with eachother. So let's go back to 1500, when Spain discovered the Americas.

 

Which universal values did you find there? To give some examples: humans were sacrificed, girls were kidnapped by tribes to have new "offspring", parents were killed once they couldn't work anymore, people couldn't even look at the kings because they were too holy... Also, some priests lived exclusively on human meat.

 

That culture was total different from ours, far away from our values...!

 

I can give you more examples... Samoa, Papua, Amazonia, middle Africa,... read books, you'll see

 

What is interesting. Once our values (based on the bible/ten commandments) started to spread, they became accepted in most parts of the world because of the colonies. Now that they are part of most cultures, they became "at once" universal values.

 

 

Woow, but here you are not right. There are loads of books written by monks with the healing capacities of plants. The most famous is Hildegard von Bingen. This mystical nun had a huge encyclopedia about healing plants... And she probably had her visions while using Datura by the way. That is one of the big mis-understandings of mediëval times... very cliché. Everyone thinks they were dumb, but they were not, in the opposite, they started with our modern medicines!

Of course they prayed for health if the disease was unknown or not be found, but modern people do that too.

 

 

Interesting. You are right at a certain moment the Arabic world was more scientific... Mostly the 8-11th century. And there it stopped. After that the mediëval Christian culture took over.

 

The rapid change in science is a relatively slow evolution, it took hundreds of years... not caused by enlightment, but the search for truth. As written in my last post to Tatsu, this has to do with the beg-monks, who needed to look for right answers while preaching. You need to have a look how many important inventions were made by Domonican & Franciscan monks! It's because they were focused on "truth". (think "in the name of the Rose", a movie of course, but with hints of reality).

 

Once people were more thinking like that, and they realised they had more power then the old school class system, the first revolutions/enlightment came. There everything became faster of course... But at that time Christianity had not a bad, but a good influence on that! The big wave of secularisation started only 50 years ago... Don't forget that

 

Anyway, interesting discussions here

 

i think we are talking about different things here. you are of course right that there are no universal values and that many (or rather most) cultures had practices that would be considered barbaric and inhumane by today's (western or westerized) standards. the aztecs are probably most well known example and i don't doubt there are many more.

 

i was rather trying to say that altruism is not something unique to christianity and a universal component in human nature. this is also well rooted in human evolution. giving up something that's only advantageous to yourself for the good of your whole tribe (mostly relatives sharing a good part of your genome) gives your genes a greater chance of being passed on (at least in those early tribal human societies).

a example (that nicely illustrates how we were talking about different things) is the myth of the founding of vientiane: they erected a central pillar for the city and their rituals demanded a human sacrifice for this purpse. eventually a pregant woman jumps into the pit below the pillar and is crushed instead of the selected victim and as a pregnant woman is considered to be of greater value this means better luck for the city. although this is of course nonsensical and barbaric by today's standards it made sense and was considered a great sacrifice for the good of the whole city back then. even if it's a myth (and therefore a bad example, i know ) it dates back to that time and shows that altruism had the same value in a wholly different culture and time. btw, people still light incense for her.

 

i'm not sure i can agree that the bible is the main source of our values today. i'd also give credit to various philosophers and other thinkers (from ancient greece to liberalism and even karl marx).

i actually see more similarities between our values and theravada buddhism (which also influened the greeks) than with the bible — at least or especially when you include the old testament, which has be pretty barbaric and bloodthirsty at times.

 

 

you're of course right about hildegard von bingen (even though the work of dioskurides which was written in roman times was considered to be more valid and complete in the medical community long after they lost interest in hildegard's works). afair she was one of the first to really do some work in this area again and of great importance at the time (around 1000 iirc). but what about the few hundred years before? our lecture said that more knowledge had been lost than gained in that peroid.

 

 

i agree about the monks and monastaries, but don't forget that the first university (bologna) was founded as a secular one (even though the clergy undoubtedly played a role back then).

 

i'd rather suspect that the big wave of secularisation (with respect to common people) started with the rise of communism more around 100 years ago, but i guess that depends on what you call big, it surely accellerated since with lots of things happening about 50 years ago

 

 

absolutely

[ouroboros]

 

In Philosophy this is called the manipulation of truth... Because you are not objective. You think humans are pure good, religion is bad... I can switch this sentence 100%: and for me that is even closer to reality. The human nature of humans is selfish and not really caring... It's religions that started to put that ideal into humans thanks to certain people who saw the importance of that (like Jesus, Buddha,...).

I can't believe you say Francis would have done the same without religion. It is simply untrue. Read his personal letters/books, you'll see...

For me, humans are humans and will do a lot of BAD things. Religion are giving guidelines to be a better human being. It's the people's choice what they do with it. Of course many fail (we are still humans) but many do NOT fail, and for some reason we never see them on tv etc :s

To finish: don't forget the European/American law are based on Christian ideals! The 10 commandments changed the world. Simple as that! And don't think these are universal laws, because in Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Amazone and certain Muslim countries that didn't get in touch with Christianity or Buddhism have TOTAL different laws. Stoning, blood-revenge, even getting raped the night before you are married...

While studying about religions your eyes will go open, if you want I can give you a lot of interesting books

1. i didnt say i think humans are good and religion is bad. there is no correlation between the two so i would never make such a comparison.

2. i didnt say fracis would have done it...i said he COULD have done it. neither of us can say what he would have done. my point is that religion was not required to do the things he did.

3. yes...people are people and some of them will always do bad things. however, religion has never, i repeat NEVER made a bad person not do bad things. it has however, countless times over the millena, caused good people to do horrible horrible things.

 

i repeat...there is nothing good that religion provides that humans cant provide for themselves, in a more efficient, lasting, and genuine way. there are however plenty of awful things that religion provides that arent so easily accomplished via other means.

 

 

 

[ptn]

 

religion has never, i repeat NEVER made a bad person not do bad things. it has however, countless times over the millena, caused good people to do horrible horrible things.

 

 

 

That's a bold statement, You want to say that there was no person in history of mankind who was an as*hole and has changed his life completely after some sort of revelation?

I can also imagine someone who could do worse, but he/she's afraid of the punishment from up there.

 

 

i repeat...there is nothing good that religion provides that humans cant provide for themselves, in a more efficient, lasting, and genuine way. there are however plenty of awful things that religion provides that arent so easily accomplished via other means.

 

 

 

Religion, philosophy, way of thinking, moral code - call it what You want, but denying that 4 example someone says religion helped him understand the meaning of empathy or love, because he could do this differently and more efficient is just being picky.

[ouroboros]

 

 

That's a bold statement, You want to say that there was no person in history of mankind who was an as*hole and has changed his life completely after some sort of revelation?

I can also imagine someone who could do worse, but he/she's afraid of the punishment from up there.

 

 

 

Religion, philosophy, way of thinking, moral code - call it what You want, but denying that 4 example someone says religion helped him understand the meaning of empathy or love, because he could do this differently and more efficient is just being picky.

you are confusing religion with other things here. "some sort of revelation" is not religion. philosophy, way of thinking, and moral codes are not religion. religion is by definition a specific set of beliefs and practices. it is not "some sort of revelation" or a "philosophy".

 

and no its not being picky, thats the point. religion does not and is not intended to help anyone understand the meaning of anything. it is a set of instructions and stories that stifles any understanding of anything. how can it help people understand when its entire purpose is to give people made up answers and reasons for things with the explicit instruction that it is never to be questioned or thought about?

 

religion in fact does the exact opposite of what you suggest, it hinders understanding and prevents people from reaching their full potential.

[ptn]

 

 

you are confusing religion with other things here. "some sort of revelation" is not religion. philosophy, way of thinking, and moral codes are not religion. religion is by definition a specific set of beliefs and practices. it is not "some sort of revelation" or a "philosophy".

 

and no its not being picky, thats the point. religion does not and is not intended to help anyone understand the meaning of anything. it is a set of instructions and stories that stifles any understanding of anything. how can it help people understand when its entire purpose is to give people made up answers and reasons for things with the explicit instruction that it is never to be questioned or thought about?

 

religion in fact does the exact opposite of what you suggest, it hinders understanding and prevents people from reaching their full potential.

 

You've just sticked to my 'some sort of revelation' phrase. I meant a specific situation when person starts believing, it's not something we can only see in christian channel movies. Saying something isn't doesn't make it so and yes, I know it works the other way aswell, I think we have agree to disagree here.

 

May philosophers, especially ancient, based their system on believing that the world or specific behaviour is like this or that because they thought it is and I see no great difference between religion, you just have to add supernatural to equation (I wrote it somewhere earlier that religion is to me 'a philosophy + supernatural'). Religon does hinder nothing, only shallowminded 'believers' follow everything like sheep, they are the same who read everything literally. People question, investigate and progress. There are plenty of scientists, writers and other who follow religion and have successess on their fields, they don't see the collision.

[ouroboros]

you are correct that saying something isnt doesnt make it so and vice versa. however there is not one single shred of evidence in the entire history of mankind to support any religion.

 

so, if you accept that basing beliefs in factual, observable, and demonstrable information is a prudent way to live, as i do, then there is no way to support religions of any kind. and im not even counting the many and varied evils in the world that are directly caused by religion.

there is zero difference between any religions practiced today and the countless dead religions from the past. in another 5000 years people will be talking about jesus and mohamad, and shiva, and any other religious figures the same way we talk about zeus and thor and osiris now. just some silly stories people believed in back when they didnt know any better.

 

it just saddens me that it will take that long.

[ptn]

You seem to keep both feet strongly on the ground, which is great, just don't be too surprised when Second Comming occurs or Allah shows up one day . Using 'anything', 'nothing' or 'zero' in discussing religion seems (to me of course) out of place, because it's not physics or chemistry, the best way is to believe (or not) and at least tolerate the rest.

[laik]

 

i repeat...there is nothing good that religion provides that humans cant provide for themselves, in a more efficient, lasting, and genuine way.

 

 

I disagree with your statement. Humans had been forming religions with a purpose of explaining natural occurrences on which they could or couldn't have had some/any influence such as thunders, wind, other weather conditions, lack of water etc. Another big reason for forming religion was to keep their sanity (maybe the process of forming was conducted unconsciously- it's a fact that we have psychological immune system). Take for example this current snow storm in US where temperatures go way down to -50 celsius. Now picture indians 400-500 years back, in their tents wondering about how long will this storm last and will they have enough food to eat.

 

btw to answer the topic question; I'm atheist.

[ouroboros]

 

 

I disagree with your statement. Humans had been forming religions with a purpose of explaining natural occurrences on which they could or couldn't have had some/any influence such as thunders, wind, other weather conditions, lack of water etc. Another big reason for forming religion was to keep their sanity (maybe the process of forming was conducted unconsciously- it's a fact that we have psychological immune system). Take for example this current snow storm in US where temperatures go way down to -50 celsius. Now picture indians 400-500 years back, in their tents wondering about how long will this storm last and will they have enough food to eat.

 

btw to answer the topic question; I'm atheist.

 

i dont see what your examples have to do with my statement. name one benefit that religion provides that can not be had without it.

[ouroboros]

You seem to keep both feet strongly on the ground, which is great, just don't be too surprised when Second Comming occurs or Allah shows up one day . Using 'anything', 'nothing' or 'zero' in discussing religion seems (to me of course) out of place, because it's not physics or chemistry, the best way is to believe (or not) and at least tolerate the rest.

using "anything", "nothing" or "zero" is not out of place when we are discussing the quantifiable aspects of religion. i can not, will not and do not tolerate it. you are asking me to "tolerate" the single most destructive, violent, oppressive, and insidious concept mankind has ever devised. i see religion as the worst cancer on society that has ever been, why would i ever consider tolerating it?

[laik]

 

i dont see what your examples have to do with my statement. name one benefit that religion provides that can not be had without it.

 

 

Well to answer that question you have to povide more input. There are many factors which play role in determining whether such state (state in which alternative to religion exist) is or would be possible such as socio-economic, political, geographic and many more. There is a huge difference in circumstances between me,you and a woman in Syria who's in fear for her children and having no one to turn to for help. All I want to say is that religions were created by men as a tool to overcome bad situations.

 

And like every tool it can be used for good or bad. Take an axe for example. You can use it to chop someones head or to chop some wood for fire.

 

Sure you can say; Hey your axe is outdated, you should try hydraulic wood splitter. But the thing is that not everyone has that luxury.

 

It's apsurd to hate a tool just because people gave it a bad reputation with their bad behavior. People are the ones to blame. You can't fight the tool but only the man who carries it.

 

One should respect those who use the tool in a good manner and disrespect those who use it wrong.

 

There are still many people in desperate need for a tool which will provide them with hope and sanity to overcome bad situations and you can't blame them for using religion as that tool; it's cheap and it's available.

 

There are many people who use religion only when they are in trouble. Here, we are witnessing a tool customisation. It's not according to a manufacturer's user manual (read Church etc) but it's also okay as long as the tool is used for good purpose.

[Padmapani]

It's apsurd to hate a tool just because people gave it a bad reputation with their bad behavior. People are the ones to blame. You can't fight the tool but only the man who carries it.

but what if i hate the man who could by saying one sentance greatly reduce the future incidence aids in africa. according to most people who who actively use that particular tool, he is the sole representative of that tool and in reality he (and his predecessors) are responsible for how this tool looks like. most of the time they modified it to suit their own hunger for power. how can i not hate this tool, even if it provides comfort for some people? it has been designed to control the masses.

[laik]

if you are in need to hate a person who's misusing the tool in any way than so be it. but it's also the right thing to show respect to ones who are using it in a good manner.

 

it all revolves around human nature. if it hadn't been religion it would've been some other tool/tools. that's what history teach us. but we can talk whether some religion was created for a specific goal or not.

[Anoebis]

but what if i hate the man who could by saying one sentance greatly reduce the future incidence aids in africa. according to most people who who actively use that particular tool, he is the sole representative of that tool and in reality he (and his predecessors) are responsible for how this tool looks like. most of the time they modified it to suit their own hunger for power. how can i not hate this tool, even if it provides comfort for some people? it has been designed to control the masses.

So much to reply, so little time, aaah

 

Anyway, it's not made to control the masses, religion is much older, and is even in the smallest community in the middle of nowhere active. of course it gives a group feeling, but that's human anyway... Religion isn't bad because some people took advantage of it to control... If you think like that liberalism is bad, kapitalism is bad, ... I agree, that the tool is abused. And Ouroboros. You said some things that are simply false... problem seems to be you are not willing to even think about it, and you only concentrate on the bad. Religions did bring things in society that wouldn't be there without religion...

[Tatsu]

How I see it (which is obviously very subjective) Religion itself wasn't invented to controll the masses but because people needed/wanted a tool to explain stuff they didn't understand, to have something to hold on to and similar stuff. But organised Religion imho definitely is a tool to controle people. Imho religious or spiritual beliefs should come from the inside of each individual, be it because of the way you understand life, feelings you perceive that makes you feel there is a deity (or more deities) or whatever. Imho organised religion is far from that. Since birth you get the belives of your culture pushed into you throat. Doesn't matter if it's about Jesus, Allah, hindu gods or whatever. But not only that, you also get a set of rules about lots of stuff to do or don't. Some stuff like you shouldn't kill, you shouldn't lie and similar things are obviously a good thing but lots of other stuff is simply stupid: the whole demonisation of sexuality (gay is bad, no sex before marriage...) for example. Then there is the threath either you follow us or you will suffer after death. Yeah, great marketing strategy, you can't proof anything but if you push people long enough they believe it if they get the comfort of god in return. Besides that those rules have changed over the times and also depend on the interpretors of the Bible (or other holy books, I'm simply talking about Christianity since it's the religion of my culture but its similar for organised reglions). Not even in one religion like Christianity the diverse sub-believes are one when it comes to the interpretations of god's words and texts. Still every sub-believe thinks its version is right. And not only for their followers but for everybody. I for myself can't take that serious at all. Even if I don't believe in God I can somewhat understand people do. What I can't understand is why lots of people letting something so personal like their believes get instrumentalised. I wonder how many followers of any religion who were born into it, raised with it and even get married in the church and what really, truly believe in the whole concept of their believe. How I perceive the people arouond me they just follow and don't think too deep about that stuff (I'm talking mainly about co-worker and similar people since my friends to ask themselves questions like that, with different outcomes). It's way easier to believe in a specific church because your family, friends, culture does and then feel comfortable about it (I'm not talking about the people who participate in this thread since it is very obvious that all of you do think about the item).

[Padmapani]

if you are in need to hate a person who's misusing the tool in any way than so be it. but it's also the right thing to show respect to ones who are using it in a good manner.

 

it all revolves around human nature. if it hadn't been religion it would've been some other tool/tools. that's what history teach us.

i agree, we have had the same thing a few pages back. i do respect people who use religion on a good manner, but that doesn't say anything about something inherently good about religion. in the same way i can hate people who use religion on an awful manner, which doesn't make the religion inherently bad. but the question is what to do about people who use religion in an awful manner, when those people are according to their religious beliefs and according to their followers the universal spokesperson for that religion?

 

again, agreed. we just have to look at how the idea of communism has been perverted and used for the gain of small elites.

 

Anyway, it's not made to control the masses, religion is much older, and is even in the smallest community in the middle of nowhere active. of course it gives a group feeling, but that's human anyway... Religion isn't bad because some people took advantage of it to control... If you think like that liberalism is bad, kapitalism is bad, ... I agree, that the tool is abused.

of course, it didn't originate that way. the practice, interpretation and even scriptures have been modified (or omitted) over the centuries. that's why it baffles me that people subscribe to a particular "brand" of for instance christianity, when they differ in some fundamental dogmas. iirc the adoption of trinity by the catholic church initiated a church split. who knows if it wasn't just a decision made to consolidate power and secure influence? so even supposed christianity is the one and true religion, how are you supposed to find out the right variant? according to catholic theology, most protestants probably go to hell (after all you only need to believe that jesus is god and has died for the sins to go to heaven in most protestant groups; the catholics are much stricter here). what if the ethiopian orthodox or the thomas christians in india are right? what if the "true" christianity has been lost altogether? surely among the great multitude of options the local variant practised around you is unlikely to be the one true religion. if you believe in a religion then i guess what happens to yourself in afterlife is of utmost importance. so why are most people so "careless" and just accept the religion of their parents?

 

 

edit:

@tatsu

i should have read your wall of text the first time, then i probably wouldn't have fabricated a wall of text of my own to the same conclusion

[ouroboros]

ok...so still no one has given an example of a benefit of religion that can not be had without religion.

 

more importantly religion has been identified as a "tool" which by definition is something created by the user to accomplish a task. so...if religion is a tool created by the user (humanity) than its only logical to see that its all made up. it isnt real. the stories are just that...stories. why support a system of falsehoods that perpetuate hate, oppression, discrimination, violence, and death, when you know it to be false?

 

religion is an outdated tool. it is no longer useful, practical, or even functional in our more advanced society. perhaps at one point it served a purpose, but it no longer serves that purpose. we as a species have moved beyond the usefulness of that tool, and the continued use of it only hinders our progress.

 

there is an age old saying: "use the right tool for the right job" and religion is a tool for which there is no "right job" any more. religion is as useful to us now as stone axes are. in fact its worse than useless, when you consider the awful horrible things it still spawns.

[Oopie]

ok...so still no one has given an example of a benefit of religion that can not be had without religion.

 

I guess we're slowly, but surely heading for the direction where technological and social progress give pressure for religions to adjust their ways of spreading the spiritual message. Religions will change for better but it takes time, they're the product of their times and reflect the awareness and growth of human race on planetary scale.

My friend ouroboros, religion will always surface on the face of planet earth as long as you live and forever after. I hope sincerely you would understand this and not have grudge against religions or religious people because it's a heavy burden to carry such a feeling. Religions will, as far as I've understood it, finally merge into one when people are truly aware of their spiritual side and renew religion to be fundamentally a tool for self growth, rather than a blind belief system that's followed in the fear of punishment rather than love for God. I can understand your grudge to some degree if we are to take into closer inspection some of the writings let's say in the Bible for example. It's clear to a modern, critical human that this book has its flaws, but one shouldn't be all black and white about. It's still a well book having lots of valuable wisdom for humankind.

Benefit of religion in its most fundamental element is that it allows God-knowing/God-searching people to socially interact, change ideas and strengthen their belief by openly confessing it in front of others.

[ouroboros]

 

 

I guess we're slowly, but surely heading for the direction where technological and social progress give pressure for religions to adjust their ways of spreading the spiritual message. Religions will change for better but it takes time, they're the product of their times and reflect the awareness and growth of human race on planetary scale.

My friend ouroboros, religion will always surface on the face of planet earth as long as you live and forever after. I hope sincerely you would understand this and not have grudge against religions or religious people because it's a heavy burden to carry such a feeling. Religions will, as far as I've understood it, finally merge into one when people are truly aware of their spiritual side and renew religion to be fundamentally a tool for self growth, rather than a blind belief system that's followed in the fear of punishment rather than love for God. I can understand your grudge to some degree if we are to take into closer inspection some of the writings let's say in the Bible for example. It's clear to a modern, critical human that this book has its flaws, but one shouldn't be all black and white about. It's still a well book having lots of valuable wisdom for humankind.

Benefit of religion in its most fundamental element is that it allows God-knowing/God-searching people to socially interact, change ideas and strengthen their belief by openly confessing it in front of others.

i will have to respectfully disagree with you. the trend away from religion is already apparent. i have no doubt that the future will be nearly 100% free from it. there will always be people who feel the need to attribute the things they do not understand to supernatural explanations, but those numbers are steadily decreasing. there will come a point at which those numbers are so low they stop having an effect on the world, and we will all be better off.

 

as for your example of a benefit...i will grant you that religion does do that, but i for one certainly do not see it as a benefit. quite the contrary in fact.

[Anoebis]

ok...so still no one has given an example of a benefit of religion that can not be had without religion.

 

 

If you use the philosophic argumentation, this statement is simply wrong:

 

"so still no one has given an example of a benefit of religion that can not be had without religion."

 

As humans always HAD religion in every culture in their past, it's actually you who should prove people without religion do things people WITH religion wouldn't do (because of their religion). If you would say this in university people would laugh with that statment. it is not following the rules of a debate.

 

Anyway, I still will answer... And I told you already... The best benefits of religion and their influence on people:

 

- more charity (Christian people give more away then NON believing people)

- taking care of the poor/sick (typical Christian/monotheistic)! In most religions this is not the main thing (cfr Judaism & Hinduism)! Which is one of the big reasons why the western world managed to evoluate till what we are today. Also, so many organisations helping people are Christian! And 90% of the hospitals in Belgium (and 100 years ago it was 100%)

- education! The idea of schools for everyone, is typical Christian and started in Christian society! In other cultures this was only for the rich people...

 

and some funny side effects of being religious:

- less depressions (logical, as they find strength in God)

- people become older (because they have a resting moment once in a while)

 

I can go on, I'm just curious how you will react. And don't say. "people wouldn't have done this too without religion" without arguments, examples,...

[Panoptes]

Yes religion was a part of every culture, but who is to say that we're better off with a history of having faith in bibidy bop as apposed to actually trying to figure out the truths of our universe earlier in our progression (right... its easier to say god did it). Arguing that christianity contributed so much to our education is a running joke. There is a fundamental difference between misdirection and education. If we could theoretically erase the abrahamic religions from the face of the planet and its history (which would be nice), there is a good chance other more effective educational structures would take its place.

 

Yes christians are less depressed because they were tricked into such a demeanor or too damn stupid to know otherwise. Reality is in some respects depressing and tricking people it is otherwise is in-virtuous.

Christians are more helpful/charitable? I guess if you consider charity and running hospitals in Belgium more importation than scientific progress. I assume the people who discovered the cure for malaria, measles, small pox... weren't praying to jesus or who gives a fuck for guidance. The technological revolution wasn't brought about by prayer or good charity

Your arguments are just as if not more fragmented than ouro's.

 

I can however acknowledge that religion could have been part of our evolution, just like patriarchy and the male's role to protect and hunt. Perhaps it was a useful tool to keep the masses sane and bring order to the chaos of reality. Spare them from fruitless contemplation. Even if it was a necessary part of our history, we now are at a time where its evolutionary role is obsolete.

[Anoebis]

what I am missing are examples where things are better without religion/religious ethics... You can't simply say "if religion wasn't there, there would be something better". That's a bald statement based on unknown assumption...

About charity. Of course it is better to find a solution to a disease... But cool: they have a cure against lepracy. And still 40.000 people in the world have it. Who is helping them and giving them the necessary threatment to heal? Yes... NGO's like Damiaan-actie... ah well I would love to talk about this IRL...