Bree

I don't think we need to get rid of religion - those who ARE religious just need to keep it to themselves.

I could care less what someone does with their life - if they want to tithe to a church and spend 6 hours a day praying, that's fine with me. Just don't start telling me, forcefully, that I have to follow in your footsteps.

JusticeMachine

How do you tell someone forcefully?

Jamie_L

I don't think religion is bad because it is devisive (or not, primarily, because it's devisive).

Religion is bad because it discourages rational, skeptical thinking, and people who don't rationally and skeptically consider their decisions are more dangerous than those who do. Generally speaking. Faith is dangerous, yet easy to sell to the masses.

Forceably getting rid of religion would, of course, be bad. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if and when society evolves to the point where people no longer have supernatural beliefs, the humans and human society will be better off.

Jamie

JusticeMachine

I disagree. I know many people who are rational being who have a religion they believe in.

No, what you are afraid of are people who are irrational and dangerous.

I am separating to two; it seems you are having difficulty doing that.

It would seem that religion, in and of it's self is A-moral. Like a gun, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Most of the world conquerors of old didn't do so toward a religous ends, more over they did it for their own selfish fame and fortune.

Ghagis Khan, Alexander the Great, Caesar & Mark Anthony, Adolph Hitler. These men from time to time used religion as a tool or a means to an end, but were not themselves motivated by such.

Jamie_L

As do I. However, the people I know do not apply the same level of reasoning to their religion as to other things. My point was not about people, but about the nature of religion. Most religions encourage an acceptance of authority and reliance on faith, and discourage critical questioning of the central elements of the religion. Following many religions faithfully involves putting faith above reason with respect to the religion because that is what the religion teaches. Christianity is one example, but in no sense unique.

Well, I'm also afraid of that. Worse, however, is combining those people with religion. Religion is a powerful tool for manipulating those people. That's why it's been done so effectively throughout history. Plus, when you apply what I mentioned above with raising children, you create people who do relly on faith an authority rather than reason for nearly all their decisions. Consider radical mulsum fundamentalists raised in schools that teach nothing but adherence to the Koran and obedience to Mulahs. I'd bet money that you don't get that kind of person if you raise them on a diet of science, logic, critical thinking, and reasoned ethics and character training.

Exactly. But guns make it easier to kill people. Religion makes it easier to drive masses of people to irrational and wreckless behavior. To carry you analogy forward, if it were possible to have a world where guns weren't needed, then that world would be a better place. Of course, that's pretty well infeasible. However, a world that doesn't need religion seems more feasible to me, and like a world without guns, it would be a better place. IMO.

Jamie

Oxymoron

Though I am strongly atheist, I recognise that religion fulfils certain functions for humans:

1.) Social cohesion. The plus is that people have a structure to network around. The minus is that the special interest group is divisive. Human beings evolved to function in small communities and there is definitely a need for individuals to belong to such a group; church congregations are about the right size.

2.) A moral framework. It is very much easier to refer to a list of items that constitute "wisdom" when wishing to know how to act than to have a completely open system. Of course, it is just this sort of pigeon-holing that results in prejudice and grotesque cruelty, and it is the Bad News for believers that in reality, life is a greyscale, not black and white.

3.) Comfort. Life and death are hard to come to terms with, some or even most of it may be beyond our comprehension. People seek reassurances about the future and the past, and religion provides that.

If we were to eradicate organised religion today, there would be a void in people's lives. A secular society would need to fill these voids lest they risk social disintegration at the community level, and depressed individuals wandering around like headless chickens not knowing how to act.

JusticeMachine

Correct, but how can it be established to know how to act if everybody’s beliefs/ideals/morals are subjective. There needs to be objective truth to give people purpose. I don't know if we can ever remove the "opiate of the masses" with out the masses going "insane".

Sorry, didn't want to use insane, but couldn't think of a better word.

We need to agree that objective belief, regardless at this point what that belief is, give order and law a secure foothold. It is necessary for a society to exist. Remove it and anarchy ensues.

I guess that currently is my problem with athiestic thinking. They want to remove wedge (objective belief in something that hold us to a higher/orderly/moral standard beyond our own selfish will) that is keeping the bolder inplace, but they don't realize that in doing so they will be crushed.

Jamie_L

Beliefs/ideals/morals ARE subjective now. Everyone claims an objective source for their beliefs, but ultimately, everyone has their own, personal moral code and belief system, modified to suit their particular sensibilities. And that's just within the same basic religion. And there are tons of religions.

People who are brought up with religion feel this "void" and need for "purpose". People brought up without being trained to have that need do just fine. Robbing everyone of religion overnight could devastate them. But a slow, gradual transition that eventually results in no religion won't leave us with a world of raving homicidal/suicidal nut cases.

Bah. The U.S. Constitution seems to maintain order just fine, and it's just about entirely subjective.

Well, FIRST you have to insert the wedge of rational, critical thinking. THEN you remove the wedge of irrational belief.

Jamie

JusticeMachine

What society are you citing where the people are brought up with out being trained to have that need?

I disagree. This country is founded on the belief of objective rights:

Declartion of Independence: We hold these Truths to be self-evident (This is the premise that we founded our country on and it implies objectivity), that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator(and this it the source of that objective belief) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

The premise of the constitution is derived from the same ideals.

Jamie_L

Not a society. Just individual people. It's my unfounded opinion, based on limited experience, expressed through annecdote (now that's some worthless evidence for ya!) that people have yearning for "higher purpose" because that's what they're brought up with. I was brought up in a fairly secular household, and I've rarely if ever worried about "why I'm here" or what my "purpose" is. It just seems to me that if you raised a child without teaching them about supernatural higher purposes, they would get along just fine, and have no need to create the notion.

It's founded on the belief of rights. And, yes, there's a lot of theist/deist rhetoric in the early writings. But a lot of those rightings were calls to battle and rallying speaches. My point is that the folks who debated over the Constitution spent a lot of time arguing about those rights, which one would not expect if there was some absolute, objective model behind it.

The Constitution is one big compromise between all the subjective ideals of the people who created it. We've tweaked and modified it along the way because as time went on we decided "you know, it's not really true that blacks should be slaves or women should be second-class citizens." If it was objective truth, it would never change. It would always be right.

Jamie