I just came across to this post and decided to post.

In my perspective, human do need religion because I believe that religion is here to lead and guide us to the right path. I am not too sure if there are other religions who encourages evil but I am talking about the Christians, Muslims and Buddhists.
We obviously do not know the existence of hell, heaven and reincarnation/rebirth for sure because there is no one who have been there and came back to tell us.
But we, humans, who are afraid to die have a desire to live on in the future in a better lifestyle. I think that is why there is such places called hell, heaven and reincarnation - life after death. It's a choice of whether how you want your future to be. By doing good, we will end up having a better after life and vice-versa.

religion did precipitate most of them anyway.

rather than intertwines peace as much as it promotes, it predicates hatred toward the ones of different beliefs.

Anti-informatics,
I believe you are confusing atheist and agnostics. You would be an agnostic, not an atheist.

As for generalising, if the believers do not fully adhere to their religions, it would mean even they recognise the flaws of their own religion. Thus further proving my point that religion is out of date.

In that case, is it then true to say that religion are impractical?

Catholics are against abortion, but many undergo abortions. Why?

If an individual believes murder is a sin but goes on to commit one anyway, is he a better person than all the other murderers?
EDIT:
For the record, atheist do not deny the existence of heaven or hell, nor god. They simple believe there are no evidence for the contrary. It is for this reason most vocal atheists (with a few exceptions) do not have a problem with people believing in a religion. They simply do not want religion to interfere with government policies, or contradicting science for no other reason than "because god says so."

Like I said before, I am happy for you to believe in a religion if that makes you happy, but thinking you are morally superior to me just because I lack a religion, is just plain stupid. If you think abortion, sex before marriage, contraception etc is against your believes, fine with me. But don't try to get it passed as a law, or preach it onto others.

You don't see atheist attacking Buddhists.

PS. I also do not believe religious institutions deserve tax exempt status, unless their main purpose is for non-discriminatory, charitable works.

Bad example there. Doing an exam depends on skills, what we were talking about has more to do with will.
Going to school, well, I don't find it hard, and I think that's because I want to be there. It's hard when you don't want to. So in that case, not a relevant example, since I take it Christians want to but can't do it.

What are these imperfections you speak of? I see none. All I see is human rights. In a rape case, or in a case where the quality of life of either the kid or the mother will be inversely affected, I believe it is fully justifiable, and so do the liberal Catholics.

Recognising one's mistakes is certainly the first step to rehab. There is no NEED for religion to tell you that. If you feel a religion does that best for you, good for you. But since many people do not need religion to realise that, the answer to the original question is once again, no. The debate should be on the rationality of what religion deems right or wrong.

If you think sacrificing your personal satisfaction or human rights for god is worth it, because he promises an afterlife, then so be it. But since there are no evidence that god or, an afterlife, definitely exist, can you criticise those who value their current life more than this so called god?

The player represents the game, which is why the game always take action against their players for bad behaviour. After all, the players are the ones that propagate the game. Good or bad name depends on the players. If I hate a player, I won't hate the game. But if I hate the playerS, no reason not to hate the game.

EDIT: Hate is perhaps too strong a word.

EDIT2: Come to think of it, without the players, the game would be even less bearable. If Christians believe in the literal meaning of the bible, all hell would break loose (forgive the pun). It is precisely because of the players who interpreted the bible less radically that made religion seem less irrational. Though, I concede, some do make it worse.

Firstly, "things I may not want may in fact be good for me." How do I do such a thing "out of love"? If I don't want this, it is highly likely I'll want the opposite. So assuming I am not harming anyone in the process, shouldn't I do what I love, which is the opposite?

i dont get you. ok, u said that if a person finds something that is hard to accomplish is something that is not worth it, then i am merely saying that that is ridiculous. which is the case.

Secondly, I did not say there are no flaws with humanity. In fact, there are way more flaws in it than virtues, from my point of view. I merely stated there is nothing wrong with abortion if the case if justified. If there are no definite yes or no to those issues, why do some religion explicitly state one or the other, and claim that that is god's wish. This may be the player's fault, not the game, but it comes from the highest authority, the pope. Short of god, I believe he is the person you would turn to for 'god's message'?

i am only speaking on behalf of christianity in this case and in the bible, there is no explicit rule on abortion, therefore i will not judge on this controversy

Yes, people's morals and values can be influenced by religion. And granted, many good values have come out of religion, but what is to say those are from god, not from a wise old man who passed on those values?

You can't blame me for confusing the believes of Christians, since they are the ones that told me "if you don't convert to Christianity, you will go to hell." I am only assuming they converted to go to heaven. That seems a logical reasoning. Ok, I concede I have to hate the player not the game in this particular case.

Next irony. If that is "your believe," and "not all Christians think like that," how am I suppose to know the game? Am I suppose to learn what this Christian thinks then subsequently what that Christian thinks? If you don't know what other Christians think, what is to say my interpretation is wrong and yours is right? What if I say I'm a Christian and this is how I think? So you are wrong. I think I am missing something here. Please elaborate.

which is precisely why i said to study the "game" before passing comments on christians and christianity. in the event that you say you're a christian and yet oppose what i have to say above then i guess there is something wrong somewhere and i would like to be enlightened on why you have such a mindset

Finally, I know things in the bible are not meant to be taken literally (except for Sarah Palin). That is why I said fortunately it isn't. But that begs the question, what should be taken literally, and what shouldn't? And who is the authority on this?

bible study can be a very personal thing, as with being a christian itself. sure, there are aid to help you understand the bible and its contents but in the end, your conscience plays a part in the whole understanding bit. im not saying to take the good and discard the bad, no but there is a message in there for everyone. im afraid there is no scientific way to put it. it's something you'd have to look at without any pre-conceived notion.

EDIT:
Please let me know how I can know the game better. I take it church would not be a good place to start considering the players themselves don't know what the game is.

on the contrary, church is a good way to start. especially church with likeminded people (i.e: youth). i take it that u've encountered "bad" christians before, as with many others.



"afterall, why should others determine what u like and what u not like?"
This though, is my favourite part of all your posts. I am a staunch libertarian, believing that everyone deserves their own rights and liberty. Which leads to the main problem of religions: Why do they tell you what to do? Should it not be our choice? Why tell me I should not drink? Why tell me I should pray? Why tell me I need to go to church? Would it make me a lesser person if I'm doing something I like and that something happens to be contrary to the church's believes (assuming it is not harming anyone else)?
Note: not referring specifically to Christianity in all those cases.

to me, christianity does not tell you what to do. i mean, you had the freedom of doing anything you want before being a christian, so why get your freedom get restricted? lightning's not gona strike you down at 1st sight of a sin. on the contrary, it provides an insight as to how the freedom is obtained, and at what price so that you might want to think twice before doing something dodgy. let's just say it provides an explanation, or an insight not a law. the rest is up you. you still have a choice. i can only speak for christianity in this case as im not sure about others

By the way, the spread of religions are through people, missionaries, aka, players. If the players caused my misunderstanding of the game, it is hardly my fault. If I am misled by the players, who knows how many others are? Perhaps even some converts too?

U can said whatever you wan b3ta, but the fact is that most christians are doing things for a place in heaven...Nothing went wrong with religions, Just people in fact >.<  Sometimes i think atheism and agnosticsm are not intend against the GOd, but the people who believe in it

b3ta,

However, the bible did mention homosexuals. Then again, like you said, it could be interpreted differently.


I must say though, your view of Christianity seems quite different from many other Christians. If all Christians think as you do, I wouldn't have qualms with them. But that still does not validate your point about hating the player, and not the game. This is because, like I mentioned before, religions are spread by people, the believers. The bible, churches etc are written and preached by people. Many have different views from you, so what is to say who is right and who is wrong?

im not a person to judge right or wrong, sinful or not, God is. and as i said religion is a personal thing. i'm not going to be a hypocrite and say i am a perfect christian, far from that. but my belief from my understanding is so and so is my stand on the matter. others may have their own different views on the matter, and as long as they can sleep at night and can answer to God, and are open about others' views then so be it.
it.
Telling me to study the game isn't an appropriate defence. How do you know I have not read the bible? How do you know I have not read about the history of the religion? Talked to other Christians? And the thousands of different Christian denominations. Which one does your views belong to? If I am misguided by Christians I can only assume those Christians were misguided too. In the case of religion, I'm afraid to say, the game is the players. Because the players are what spreads the religion.

it seems from your replies that you do not have much knowledge on Christianity, that is why i took a short in the dark, if i was wrong then my bad. but like i said, if you have delved deeper into this issue then you would have your own stand on what being a christian is. no use for others feeding you their beliefs. search and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened, ask and you shall receive. it's something that you must go on your own to find out.

i dont like to categorize christianity as if theyre vitamin supplements but if i were to pick one i would say charismatic pantecostal. and i am not judging, so i wont say you nor they are misguided. but you dont seem happy with the idea of christianity that you have been told of, and am just trying to say that it's not necessarily like that. christianity is supposed to give joy and freedom, not glum and oppression.

I realise it is the different interpretation of the religion which have spurred the formation of these different denominations. So is there really one Christianity? Did you know, by speaking for Christianity, you are in fact including the Catholics?
i asked this question myself. and one of the answers i got was that each denomination is like a body part. we're all slightly different but we work together and we are essentially one. with this, i am not including cults cos they are just...weird i.e: jehovah witness, seventh day adventist, christadelphians

i heard before someone say christian deserve to go heaven and buddhist go hell?Does it make sense?

b3ta,

I only hope all believers think like you do. And I hope the freedom includes the freedom to NOT believe.

So I guess there is nothing left to say on that point. However, my stance on the initial question still remains. Humans do not NEED religion to survive. After all, I can attain joy and freedom without believing in the existence of god, or embracing a religion.

Don't get me wrong, if religion works for you, believe it. I don't deny the existence of god either. I simply believe I can understand life and things in it without bringing god into the equation. Hence, religion is not a necessity.

I laughed so hard at your lack of understanding towards Buddhism and total courage to yell that all Buddhists go to hell in a public forum

In Buddhism, you live your life for today. You live and complete your work today and practice loving kindness to everybody and everything. Keeping yourself calm, happy and very importantly, mindful enables you to be able to see things in different perspectives and offer help and help yourselves in ways you've never thought of previously. It just opens up your mind. Those of us who have not come to a point of which our mind and understanding has improved, will continue to battle this thoughts of hell and heaven and religion. Those of us who have understood, just explain and let it go.

If one chooses to fight the Buddhist way, we'll just let go and move on with our lives. Eventually you'll see why we do that. Its not like collecting points to die in Buddhism. It's just living and helping those around us. Death is another phase altogether but we're not done with life. So we'll just focus on finishing life first.

I know it sounds so "WTF?" but I went from WTF to "Ooohh.....it actually works!"

most chinese practice a bastardized version of buddhism. and most is custom rituals rather than religious rituals.

and yes, buddhism is a very hippie/zen religion.

Oh? You don't know? Well, you see, I got the blue tags from the admins of the website. I don't know where Admins get their tags though, but I think Admins can give Admin tags. I hope that answers your question.

Practices of burning hell notes is Taoist. Read the earlier post by awakened angel. A lot of temples have adopted culture and thus the burning of paper. Take a visit to India's Nalanda, and you'll see there are no paper being burnt. Buddhism does sound like a rather hippie'ish teaching, but it also depends how you apply it. If you're a student, and apply living for the moment, it'll involve doing your homework asap and for me, maybe finishing my paper ASAP. If you're a housewife, it could mean doing your chores now, and when it's time to watch TV, watch TV. For a businessman, it could involve, getting the deal done today because today's the time to work and get it finished.

Also the level of Buddhism I'm showing you right now, is a beginner level. There's much more that even I haven't finished all.
I thought Zen came from Buddhism?

Where did I mention humans needing religion? Don't recall. Only remember saying "do not" need. I did say if it works for you, then good for you. That does not imply need. Believers will still be alive without the existence of religion, since many non-believers are very happy and healthy indeed.

more or less the "no one gives a damn" reason, most chinese are not that deep religion wise, they are more worried about hte material world than the spiritual one.

you can follow the buddhist life philosophy and yet still burn stuff. i dont see the incompatibility there. i mean buddha didnt say "dont burn stuff".

i dont live in the past, but i appreciate/remember the past while living in the present. and living in the present does not mean not caring about the future. you can think/care/plan for the future, but your focus must be in the present. you cant keep saying "i'll enter harvard in 5 years" without focusing on studying hard now.

yeah i practise these chinese custom. you can do lots of silly things buy saying its "custom"

Take it this way.

If you live for today, and settle all the important things for today, and plan for the future. When the future comes, you execute the plan well, it succeeds. If you live for tomorrow, and throw away the important things of today (parents, family, friends, companionship) in the end, you achieve your goals, but lose what you should've appreciated.

Buddhism's a teaching, that when you ask a question, you'll get more questions. The Buddha himself answers questions, with questions.
When you've gone through the whole circle and finally see the light, you'll ask yourself (or at least I did), "Why the hell didn't I just accept it instead of taking 2 long years to figure it out?"

Makes you humbled and feel a lil stupid sometimes

"X" wrong knowledge.

there is room for hell (aka afterlife) and god (godS even) in buddhism. buddhism is not an atheist religion. its just that buddhism tend to focus on your spirituality rather than some paranormal superpower being. it dont really care about gods and/or demons as its objective is for people to achieve enlightenment.

the burning and the 18 layers etc are afaik taoist though. and since buddhism has room for these supernatural stuff so they cohabitate quite well.

a crude and simple way of describing it but basically yeah; but buddhism is a very personal "religion" (more like a way of life) you live life in a certain simple (but hard to achieve) way and you get the reward then and there, no need to wait for some so-called promised afterlife.

the buddha did not ascend or achieve enlightenment when he left the world. he achieved enlightenment while living.

and i wouldnt say "not give a damn about the surrounding world"; and i wouldnt say "buddhism can be plugged in to other teaching" but rather buddhism can cohabitate with most other religion in a peaceful way.

and last i check, accepting the good while discarding the bad, is a good thing buddhist accept that there are many ways to salvation/inner peace/bliss; just that they think their way is the shortest path (not necessarily the easiest path) and so they dont object if others wish to go at their own pace/take the scenic route.

polytheism is not a result of buddhism. polytheism exist pre-buddhism. and afaik, you dont have to pray in buddha (or the buddhist saints - hard to spell name that i cant be bothered to google). buddha is not god. buddha dont need your prayers.

not to turn this into religious war, but you may search youtube for "buddhism vs christianity" for some thoughtful discussion (among some rubbish)

disclaimer: i'm not a devout buddhist; actually i'm not much of a buddhist at all. i'm agnostic. all are based on my observation and analysis. if some one retort with some war like buddhist commandments; lets just say that wont be the 1st time im wrong about something 

buddhism is a teaching/guideline/way of life

having said that, buddhism claims many super natural things like reincarnation, the eternal soul, cosmic karma that cant/hard to be verified and this depends on faith. therefore it is also a religion.

but then again, if you disregard those religious stuff, it is still a very good guideline on how to live your life fully and in harmony. just dont expect a reward at the end. the reward is the journey.

Israel is the so-called country that was once Palestine but have been given to Jewish people who fled out.
Jews is a religion, their religion is called Judaism

Israel ppl doesnt necessarily mean Judaism ppl only, there are Christian Jews and Muslim Jews...But they were originally Palestinians

Study first before make incorrect statements.