Cheryl,

Who decides what is good and what is evil? Most think that genocide is 'evil', but the Rwandan dictator in the early 90s would disagree, claiming it improves the gene pool. Likewise, Hitler thought so too. A less radical example would be stem cell research. The Pope and some Catholics (fortunately not all), strongly opposes stem cell research, but most scientist and perhaps the community at large have no problems with it.

I apologise as I realise there should be no debate in this threat. Hence, I will include my personal views below.


Personally, I believe humans do not need religion to survive. On an individual level, I am living proof. On a community level, one theory suggests that religion was created to control society. That seems like a plausible theory. A government can only do so much to control its citizens, and behind closed doors, they are powerless. What can be better to fix this than to create "god" which is omniscient and omnipotent and hence knows what you do in the comfort of your own homes and even what you think? Following that, all they had to do was tell you what "god" think is right or wrong, which in reality, is their own views. And of course, heaven and hell. This also explains why religion is almost always associated with politics (conservatives/liberals).

By this theory, religion has done humans good. But, this was all pre-enlightenment. Since the rise of science, religions have not evolved or adapted to this new understanding of humanity. Hence, now it is in fact impeding the developments of science. Obviously, this theory also suggests that "god" was created by humans, but this topic is about religion, not god.

You could argue that it still does serve to control the behaviour of humans, if we remove the obstacles it presents to science. However, Thoreau would argue that every human beings have their own conscience, and most would agree with this. So, if we do have our own conscience, why do we need entities such as a church or the pope or even god to tell us what is right and what is wrong? Should we not decide for ourselves? The pope has a very radical stance on many issues. Contraception, stem cell, abortion etc. But most Catholics do not explicitly agree with them. This proves that even with religion, humans make their own choices, so there really is no "NEED" for a religion.

Although I am not against religions, as I believe every individual should have the right to believe or not to believe in a god or religion, and religion does make some people happier, though it does make some others miserable, being an atheist, not only do I strongly disagree when people say atheists are immoral, but sometimes, it is blatantly obvious that I have higher moral values than many of those with religion. So, to answer your question in short, no, I do not believe humans NEED religion. And religion is NOT necessary to have good moral values.

With regards to your first paragraph, wrong. Religion's popularity has been facing a decline in the last century or so. It is indeed still around, but that does not prove it has survived the struggle. You wouldn't expect it to just disappear overnight, do you? Furthermore, not everyone is aware of science, or its implications. Not everyone understands how scientific studies are carried out, and the progress it has made since its rise during the enlightenment era. But trends do exist to show that the higher an individual's understanding of science is, the higher the likelihood of them being an agnostic or an atheist. The best example being that most scientist, even in conservative America, are agnostic or atheist.

As to the question of death and the meaning of life, if those atheist friends of yours are so afraid and depressed at the prospect of death, why don't they embrace a religion that promises an afterlife? I would think doing so would be more reasonable than remaining depressed. Are you sure they aren't your imaginary friends? As far as I'm concerned, I know of no atheist that is depressed at the thought of death. If you need the existence of a god or a heaven to feel fulfilled in life, one ought to question what exactly are you doing with your life. Are you not happy with the life you are currently living? I subscribe to the philosophical theory known as Absurdism. It states that any quest to search for an extrinsic meaning to life will inevitably fail. Hence, it is best to live by the principle of: the meaning of life is the meaning you give it. This has yet to fail me, and I have never been as enlightened in life since I understood this concept.

As for your last paragraph, by your concept, dogs, fish and worms too believe in the existence of god? Or do you not believe humans came about from evolution? Our change from apes was gradual. At which point did god enter our "psyche"? In fact, Darwin stated in his book The Descent of Man page 93 that, "There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God." He even goes on to say that many "savage races" do not even have a word for "god". So, no, your theory is flawed. Plus, in line with Darwin's evidence, is it any surprise that most religions originated from civilised societies?

Finally, there is no reason for me to call on god to save me from dying. There are ample studies done to show that praying does not cure diseases, or even improve a condition. Additionally, I find it hypocritical of you to feel "desperate to live" since you claim your believe in god makes you not fear death.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Dec 4 2009, 01:04 AM

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.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Dec 5 2009, 11:16 PM

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.

---

Added on December 6, 2009, 12:05 pmBy this, do you mean the same "can't live without it" as those who say the same about their iphones?

If not, I am interested to understand why. Is it the existential issues? Or the morality issues? If it is something else, I would be even more interested in learning them. No sarcasm, I truly am. I believe understanding religion will go a long way in understanding the human psyche. Enlighten me, please.

As for boring, I seem to think the opposite would be true. If religion is going to dictate what is right and what is wrong, leaving no room for rational explanation, then where is the fun in making difficult decisions?

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Dec 6 2009, 12:09 PM

Wow wow, hang on. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. And there seems to be major ironies in this post of yours. I'm going to try to understand you, but since I accept the fact that my understanding is of a limited level, help me out if I get it wrong. Politely, without personal attacks, if you may.

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?

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'?

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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?

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Dec 6 2009, 09:22 PM

You may right there. I am an atheist, and I have nothing against god, if he exists. I merely cannot accept what religions preach. And since religion, as far as I know, is created and spread by people, people is the problem, not god. God is innocent.

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? 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.

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?

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.

The door has always been open, I never close the door to anything, even blatantly outrageous conspiracy theories. Just because I have seen both sides and chose not to believe, does not mean I did not open the door in the first place. On the contrary, I find many believers never gave a chance to rationalism.

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.

Good questions. Those are the questions I hope believers ask themselves before trying to convert anyone.

However, I would like to comment that those things that are currently unexplainable might one day be explained. Just because there are currently no explanations to them does not mean they are "miracles". There are no evidence that can support a "miracle" (at least I don't think so. The Catholic Church thinks there are), but reasoning is almost always supported by evidence.

Additionally, believing in god does not "motivate humans to evolve." Evolution of any species has no direction. No matter how hard you try to fly, you won't be able to. However, if you are talking about inventing and using tools, then motivation can do that, but I will still argue that one does not need god as their motivation to do so. Survival itself is a strong enough motivation.

And god clearly did not gift you with rational thinking skills to come up with your own ideas and arguments. Nor English lessons. He gave me the duty of stimulating rational thoughts among the masses while he made you a blind follower of ancient books and non-existent entities.

You must admit, he loves me more. You can't say god is indifferent.

That may be true, but religion often also acted counter productively to human progress. Instead of seeking rational, explainable reasons to certain phenomena, religions have often times tried to use god as an explanation, suppressing progress. Many examples including the teaching of Creationism in science classes, denying the Earth revolves around the Sun, opposing stem cell research among others. Not to mention the number of preventable deaths from AIDS just by using condoms.

Looking at history, there's good, there's bad. But looking ahead, I would hate to imagine a world without condoms, without stem cell research, and the abolition of the teaching of evolutionary theory. You can't deny that if religion would have it 100% their way, this would only be the beginning of the end of rationalism.

Are you then arguing that religion is out of date and was once useful, but not anymore? Because we have already gotten what we should get from it?

Of course I know that. But you are stating there is nothing wrong with the moral values of atheists, right?

But does moral values ONLY come from religions?