Is Religion no longer needed?

SilverSoldier

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Posts
193
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
238
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What healthy religion does is promote healthy principles and values. Society secularizes those values and turns them to ethics. Which to me, means whatever is right in court. So we have people battling each other by the billions saying they were wronged, and want justice.

Remember the 10 commandments? When Christ came, he said he fulfilled "the law" or the 10 commandments and said love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. On this principle do all the other laws hang.

If that's the case, if we would return to our best inner principles and values, we really wouldn't need laws. We would all agree on the standard of conduct, or at least group ourselves in accordance with common beliefs. In a way, that's what religion is--a society of people of common values.

Personally, I believe there is a lot of unhealthy religion. But I do believe that if we would act according to our conscience, the world would be a much better place. I believe we wouldn't need a law for every detail if we acted more out of our basic, best principles and values.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
What healthy religion does is promote healthy principles and values. Society secularizes those values and turns them to ethics.

Yes .... but the healthy principles and values don't change once they become religious principles and values. Hence we have religions which regard the consumption of some kinds of meat as an anathema. Now, twenty centuries later, we know about infestations by the larvae of the Trichinella worm, how to test for it, how to kill it, etc. But this relatively new knowledge cannot be incorporated into the religious canon. There's just no mechanism to do so, in any religion. What was at one time just a good healthy practice is now a religious stricture, and not subject to modification even though outmoded. Religion makes societies inflexible, and inhibits their ability to deal with new threats and crises. Some stability is good, but total ossification is not.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Yes .... but the healthy principles and values don't change once they become religious principles and values. Hence we have religions which regard the consumption of some kinds of meat as an anathema. Now, twenty centuries later, we know about infestations by the larvae of the Trichinella worm, how to test for it, how to kill it, etc. But this relatively new knowledge cannot be incorporated into the religious canon. There's just no mechanism to do so, in any religion. What was at one time just a good healthy practice is now a religious stricture, and not subject to modification even though outmoded. Religion makes societies inflexible, and inhibits their ability to deal with new threats and crises. Some stability is good, but total ossification is not.
Hence my main reason for giving it up. Many of the ethical concepts are valid (such as the golden-rule type), but the canonical shit (such as the meat prohibitions and levitical laws) just gets in the way.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
You should be careful how you state your rebuttal. At no time did I slam any one group of people. I didn't state that only religious people gave to charity. I stated facts. When it comes to issues people feel emotional about, they don't like facts that are to the contrary of what they want to be believed. Like it or not, these peoples ancestors founded this country. It was their believe in God that founded the basis of many of our constitutional rights. The National Archives is full of documents supporting it. Many people don't know it but the religious people in Virginia were going to fight Virginia's ratification of the Constitution if those rights were not guaranteed. Word was sent to James Madison and the need for the Bill of Rights was seen.

This nation was founded on secular principles and the Constitution is a secular document. Christianity or Christ isn't mentioned anywhere. The purpose of the document is to ensure religious freedom for everyone, not just Christians. Or the right to choose to not be religious, as the case may be. Were the goal of the Constitution to espouse purely Christian principles, it would say so.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Yes .... but the healthy principles and values don't change once they become religious principles and values. Hence we have religions which regard the consumption of some kinds of meat as an anathema. Now, twenty centuries later, we know about infestations by the larvae of the Trichinella worm, how to test for it, how to kill it, etc. But this relatively new knowledge cannot be incorporated into the religious canon. There's just no mechanism to do so, in any religion. What was at one time just a good healthy practice is now a religious stricture, and not subject to modification even though outmoded. Religion makes societies inflexible, and inhibits their ability to deal with new threats and crises. Some stability is good, but total ossification is not.

In the OT there are over 3,000 references to molds, mildews and fungi. In all the instruction on what to eat and how it must be prepared, it is clear to me that people with enough sense not to drink stagnant water got together and decided these ideas came from God, so that the morons they were living with wouldn't kill themselves eating nasty food without refrigeration.

If it was just from the Rabbis, it might not be taken seriously, but if it came from Gawd Almighty, people would stop eating the shellfish.

Jesus was reporting to have grumbled in the Gospel of Thomas about how no one gets famous in their own town. I guess you can always move somewhere else where you are not known, and become anyone you want.
I know a little bit about geographical cures.


To the OP, I don't think America is ready to go without religion, and I see no signs of it in Europe either. The last census showed somewhere around 77% of Americans identified themselves as some form of Christian, but the "non-religious" was only about 11% of the remainder. The vast majority of our society is tied to Christianity, despite the Deist beginnings of our forefathers. We've made up stories about our heroes too, and we believe them more fervently than the truth. We do love our Superstars, don't we? We're actually having a discussion in THIS fucking country about whether we're ready for a woman president- most of this country would simply implode without the security blanket of religion.

I am embarassed by how closely we still resemble the Neanderthal.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
This nation was founded on secular principles and the Constitution is a secular document. Christianity or Christ isn't mentioned anywhere. The purpose of the document is to ensure religious freedom for everyone, not just Christians. Or the right to choose to not be religious, as the case may be. Were the goal of the Constitution to espouse purely Christian principles, it would say so.
*lick*
*slurp*
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
This nation was founded on secular principles and the Constitution is a secular document. Christianity or Christ isn't mentioned anywhere. The purpose of the document is to ensure religious freedom for everyone, not just Christians. Or the right to choose to not be religious, as the case may be. Were the goal of the Constitution to espouse purely Christian principles, it would say so.


And a great deal of arguing and infighting went on to assure that Christianity didn't get shoved in. There were certainly more Deists and secularists writing that document, percentage wise, than we have in political offices today. I rarely if ever hear a politician admit to not believing in God.

While Christians might grudgingly offer tolerance to those who follow another religion, they're pretty sure I'm just going to Hell. And that would be okay, if it were just their personal opinions, but when they get together to pass laws promoting that intolerance, I have to cry foul.
Many Christians try to claim that they're being supressed because they can't stick their nose deeply in other people's business. Our fucking politicians are even coming right out and saying "I am making this desicion, for my constituancy, based on my own personal beliefs", and no one's getting impeached. Fucking pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions based on their personal religious beliefs- I say, if you refuse to do your job, you should get fired. How much would they defend their "morals" if it cost them something, instead of just costing someone else?

Haha, fundamentalist religion has crept squarely into the mainstream, and there are very few Christians who have even a clue how pagan so many of their beliefs are. Annoying as fuck.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Haha, fundamentalist religion has crept squarely into the mainstream, and there are very few Christians who have even a clue how pagan so many of their beliefs are. Annoying as fuck.
But Zora, the part that gets to me is this:

I choose not to impose my beliefs upon those fundamentalists. I prefer just to leave them alone, ignore them. They are just fine with that.

I also ask to be left alone. That's when they scream that I'm attacking them and oppressing them and denying them their religious freedom.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
But Zora, the part that gets to me is this:

I choose not to impose my beliefs upon those fundamentalists. I prefer just to leave them alone, ignore them. They are just fine with that.

I also ask to be left alone. That's when they scream that I'm attacking them and oppressing them and denying them their religious freedom.


Right, I'm right there with you babe. They think "Live and let live" impedes them, because part of their "purpose" is to evangelise (indoctrinate, brainwash, whatever), so their right to ram shit down my throat must be protected, even when all I'm asking for is to be left alone.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
After reading Madame Zora's thread I had to ask myself if Religion still has a crucial role in society.

I don't think it does.

The rise of secularism in most civilized countries has taken away the roles the Church once had. Some would argue that religion is the basis for morals, and morals are the basis for laws. Assuming that is true: Does it matter now that the laws are in place?

Well, technically, religions never ever needed to exist. One can live and breathe and eat and sleep and die without them. In fact, you don't even need a brain. Amoeba's and bacterias and most other living things just are born, do their thing, and die without ever thinking about it at all.

Before moving further, I'll first say that I do not like to use the word "religion" when speaking of such things. This is because in the West, "religion" more or less has a connotation that brings people to think of fanatical oppression. I prefer the more eastern understanding, which uses words like "teachings," or again in western terms, we can think of them better as "philosophies." I love delving into philosophy, although it is something that is impossible to prove even if you did discover something, because it is fascinating to think about where and why and how things happen/exist as they do.

As for the many different philosophies/teachings/religions that humans have made, they are all essentially the same. They do all just tell people how to live their lives in "goodness." So, yes, they pretty much lay down mores for people to follow. And again, if you examine them all, they are all pretty much the same, just the legends change. Makes you think perhaps all the people throughout time were on to something eh? There must be something naturally human that constitutes good behavior, otherwise it would not be the case that all of these philosophies endorse the same traits.

Back on track to this particular thread though, you say that mores are not needed now that laws are in place. This is decidedly false and let me explain a little bit why. For one, laws are only created to prevent people from straying away from mores or to pull people back on course who have strayed. They do not define the mores themselves. Second, laws are essentially powerless and useless. After all, how often does one about to commit a crime take pause, step back, and say, "oh wait, that's against the law, I could get in trouble for it, I'd better not now," and then decide not to. That's not how it works. People don't care what the law says, they do what they do, and they do what they believe. So, if some kind of authoritative control is your objective, the only (and only) way to achieve such an end is to be able to control the hearts and minds of the people. Only when people's minds are changed will their behavior change. You can make a law a day and all you will do is create more criminals. Statutes and parchment don't accomlish anything. In fact, they are more likely to oppress people and throw them into rebellion if unchecked. The key to having a society that is wholly lawful lies not in law (in fact a wholly lawful society would have no laws) but in having a population of consistent mores.

"Rule a nation with justice.
Wage war with surprise moves.
Become master of the universe without striving.
How do I know this is so?
Because of this!

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life."
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
As for the many different philosophies/teachings/religions that humans have made, they are all essentially the same. They do all just tell people how to live their lives in "goodness."

If your definition of "goodness" can be stretched to cover those religions which have reveled in, say, human sacrifice, it may be too broad a definition to be of much use.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
If your definition of "goodness" can be stretched to cover those religions which have reveled in, say, human sacrifice, it may be too broad a definition to be of much use.

Well sure, that was "goodness" for those cultures, slavery was "goodness" for the early Americans, and didn't we recently just have a man put to death by hanging? Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for capital punishment most of the time, but I can see this as something that could be contrary to our own best interests long term.

I believe that most people who do not suffer from mental illness in the traditional form are born desiring to do "good". We want approval, nurturing, food- all the necessities. Everyone else wants these things too.
If I can get my needs met, and still leave room for you to get yours met, that's good, twice. If I can only do it by shortchanging you, then that's still good for me, but it's a shitty way to treat you. Less good, by 50%.

The details of what society finds acceptable can only be found through enjoying this space/time continuum, as social boundaries are writing themselves as they are being lived. We won't really even know what this decade is all about until it's over. Historians will write the stories, and judge us based on our choices. Were we good or bad, individually, and as a nation? What were we good at? What did we completely miss the boat about?

Since this IS what I believe, that we are writing the purpose for our lives as we live it, then I'm not interested in wasting time "praying" to false gods, and reality matters a great deal. I don't have to restrict myself to the mores of two millenia ago.

What I'm really not sure about is why I hold onto the belief that we could do better. That is perhaps my biggest folly. The more rational way to look at it would be "If we could do better, we would have".
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
If your definition of "goodness" can be stretched to cover those religions which have reveled in, say, human sacrifice, it may be too broad a definition to be of much use.

Well, I see where you are going with that, but...

1) I do not believe that human (or any otherwise) sacrifice fits into the mores, or "goodness," of a religion. Rather, in ancient civilizations, sacrifices were a way of honoring gods, ancestors, or other spirits, etc. I do not believe that it was considered a virtue to sacrifice. I.e. you didn't receive a prize or a pat on the back or get people to say, "oh you know that Jones, he sacrifices, he must be a good person." It was more a commonplace ritual that people would partake in as a way of honoring, so it really does not at all relate to what determines goodness. I see it as a different topic altogether.

2) Similarly related, which I think is more where you were going with that statement, from what I know, there has never been a civilization that condoned vain killing. It seems to be the only undeniably human trait that is fully natural. Killing has never been accepted and certainly not rewarded or considered good. Yes, if there had been such a society ever, it would have to be one exception to saying, "all religions come to the same basic conclusions." Nonetheless, such a society doesn't exist, and even if it had, one in literally up to millions of philosophies that must have existed in all of human history by now, would be entirely negligible.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Well sure, that was "goodness" for those cultures, slavery was "goodness" for the early Americans, and didn't we recently just have a man put to death by hanging? Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for capital punishment most of the time, but I can see this as something that could be contrary to our own best interests long term.

It appears we are starting to confuse "goodness" - i.e. the principles of what makes a good person - with what is acceptable practice in daily lives. There is a huge difference. Likewise to human sacrifice, slavery was never considered a virtue. If you owned slaves, that did not make you a good person. That simply makes no sense. What makes goodness as I have referred to in all philosophies invovles basic conduct and character of a person.

Example:

A few things that involve goodness in philosophies:
benevolence, selflessness, not killing others, honesty,

A few things that do not involve the subject of goodness, are unrelated to the philosophies as my first post spoke of, but rather other topics:
slavery, ritual sacrifice, drug use, sexual practice,
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,963
Media
3
Likes
19,699
Points
643
Gender
Male
Well, I see where you are going with that, but...


2) Similarly related, which I think is more where you were going with that statement, from what I know, there has never been a civilization that condoned vain killing.

See the Old Testament for vain killing in abundance.

65

:rolleyes: Are you really unaware of other examples of genocide associted with religions in history Pumblechook?
 

Full_Phil

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
223
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
62
Location
Northeastern Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
---Only when people's minds are changed will their behavior change. You can make a law a day and all you will do is create more criminals. Statutes and parchment don't accomlish anything. In fact, they are more likely to oppress people and throw them into rebellion if unchecked. The key to having a society that is wholly lawful lies not in law (in fact a wholly lawful society would have no laws) but in having a population of consistent mores.

Really great post, Pumblechook, but isn't the real problem the fights amongst groups as to which mores will be the consistent ones. If the overriding principle could be Freedom of Choice instead of Freedom to Choose MY Choice, things would work so much better.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
See the Old Testament for vain killing in abundance.

65

:rolleyes: Are you really unaware of other examples of genocide associted with religions in history Pumblechook?
And the frequently overlooked instances of sacrifices in mainstream religions: animal sacrifice (do modern Jews still do this, I honestly don't know), human sacrifice (the crucifixion), and most importantly, symbolic ritual cannibalism (the eucharist, especially combined with transsubstantiation), and jihad.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Really great post, Pumblechook, but isn't the real problem the fights amongst groups as to which mores will be the consistent ones. If the overriding principle could be Freedom of Choice instead of Freedom to Choose MY Choice, things would work so much better.

Yeah that is the major problem with religions. The dogma becomes self-defeating. Their main purpose (at least as I see it; it is debatable though) of providing a basic framework for people to live good lives - which never includes warring and being overly stubborn - is defended through these very same means. So if the warring and evangelical religions would just follow their own models, they would not have wars and be evangelicized (err is that a word? lol). It's definitely a paradox. Again, it is where many eastern philosophies seem to have it right by adopting an attitude of "I'll do what I do and I'll let others do whatever they want (even if it is the case that my way is virtuous and theirs is not)."

"...the sage keeps his half of the bargain
But does not exact his due.
A man of Virtue performs his part,
But a man without Virtue requires others to fulfill their obligations. "
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
See the Old Testament for vain killing in abundance.

65

:rolleyes: Are you really unaware of other examples of genocide associted with religions in history Pumblechook?

Again, this is a confusion of mores and accepted cultural practices. They are completely different. See my previous post explaining exactly why.

But in this case, I fully doubt that the ability and willingness to kill another human being was considered a virtue or more. I.e. just the mere fact that you had the ability and willingness in your personal character to kill someone would not make you a good person.

Rather, this had to deal, not with mores, but with something considered a justified practice at the time. Surely, the "bad/sinners" w/e you refer to were being slaughtered because they were believed to be unvirtuous. This goes for pretty much any genocidal situation. The people doing the killing would have viewed this as a "duty" to extinguish the bad people from the world. I.e. something they had to do in this situation. That does not equate to "killing is a virtue" as you suggested. It has nothing to do with the mores of the religion at all.

So this would be a debate on the social climate of the times and not the overarching mores of the religion. I have kept my discussions only on mores and religions, not on any social practices. I find it rather futile to go back in time and curse ours and others ancestors for atrocities that they committed because we all very well know, if we were there at the time, people would be cursing our spirits today, and tomorrow, people will curse us for what happened while we lived. It makes no sense to compare cultures, in their worst moments, across great gaps in history.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
It appears we are starting to confuse "goodness" - i.e. the principles of what makes a good person - with what is acceptable practice in daily lives. There is a huge difference. Likewise to human sacrifice, slavery was never considered a virtue. If you owned slaves, that did not make you a good person. That simply makes no sense. What makes goodness as I have referred to in all philosophies invovles basic conduct and character of a person.

Example:

A few things that involve goodness in philosophies:
benevolence, selflessness, not killing others, honesty,

A few things that do not involve the subject of goodness, are unrelated to the philosophies as my first post spoke of, but rather other topics:
slavery, ritual sacrifice, drug use, sexual practice,


I understand what you are saying, I just happen to disagree. In a capitalist society, owning things makes you "good". That's why we have the largest advertising industry in the world.

In the cultures that had human or animal sacrifice as an element, then yes, the one doing the killing usually WAS made pure by it, that was the whole point! Slave owners were more prestigious than poorer farmers who couldn't afford them.

I understand that you are speaking of principles more in the abstract, but other than among philosophers, that is rarely relevant. This, I believe is the challenge to religions- that they be able to demonstrate the principles of what they consider "goodness", but they only have human beings to use for examples. Because of this, the stories will most necessarily have to be tweaked and "improved" to make the desired point.

I would even agree that we are born with a knowledge of the difference between good and bad, but really, it isn't true. Children are born selfish, and must learn to share. Those who remain racially or socially prejudiced as adults have simply never learned the lessons of kindergarten. We learn all our behaviors, every aspect of our opinions develop within the confines of our "society".

You know, I can actually imagine Jesus walking up to a bunch of thugs stoning someone for some non-important "crime" like adultery and trying to stop them- can you imagine how scary that must have been? I've seen thugs beating someone, it's not easy to get them to stop. Once bloodlust gets aroused, people are insane. If it's group participation, they lose any sense of personal accountability. Why not say something like "God is watching you!"? If they believe in God, that just might work. Jesus had bigger goals than just his own neighborhood, he had ideas he wanted to share more widely. HE believed that killing was wrong, but his religion certainly did not. While "thou shalt not kill" seems unambiguous enough, there are many, even among church clergy who are weaseling out by saying it really meant "murder"- how else can we justify going to war over our "principles"? Killing is just fine, as long as it's people who "deserve" it.