Seriously, why does anyone follow a religion? This is not a debate as to whether or not God exists, a belief or disbelief in God does not require a religion. I just don't understand what they have to offer.
On paper they seem decent - social structure, community, a reminder to 'keep you in line'. But they come with so many horrible other things. Genocide, wars, inquisition, discrimination, etc. For fucks sake, most of Europe was plagued with people arguing over their interpretation of the bible. Why do we allow this to go on? Why don't we trust individuals to form their own morals, their own religion?
I don't see what religion offers to the world. We have law to punish those who would harm society, so why do we need personal laws given to us through the ages? The whole thing seems pointless to me.
>>66197660
>why do we need religion
>continues to describe shit which were groundlayered by religion
>>66197748
Basic human laws are pretty much the same across the globe and morals exist without region.
Things like murder, theft, rape, etc are harmful to society, thus they were outlawed. You can find this to be true from the greatest empire to the smallest remote tribe - all with different religions.
>>66197660
>Genocide, wars, inquisition, discrimination,
> bad
>>66197987
>Basic human laws are pretty much the same across the globe and morals exist without region
Explain Africa then.
>>66198028
Yes, but the majority of religion is staunchly opposed to those things, yet are the driving force behind a good portion of them historically.
Weather you think these things are good or bad they harm society significantly.
"And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender to Allah [which is what 'islam' literally means] it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter."
(al-Imran 3:85)
Because all other efforts are a waste of time where people strive towards hellfire.
>>66198146
Let's not pretend those are people.
But in all seriousness, what do you mean? They don't have laws against violent crimes?
>>66198243
>defending the concept of religion with a single misguided religion.
You gots to be trollin'
>>66197660
People who don't have other interests like music or astronomy need something to care about that comes with an active social environment.
>>66198448
And this justifies the wrong doing of religion in the past? Just something to pass the time?
It doesn't seem to offer a net positive to society. I understand genocide, wars, etc will all happen without religion, but a lot of it has been motivated solely by religion. And the followers didn't stand up to the leaders.
>>66197660
Because we are silly animals who fear death/the unknown and because you have to explain to little Jimmy where his turtle went after it died.
Other than that, it's just a means to control the masses.
>check out my edges
https://youtu.be/QvVgSrp0tZM
>>66197660
Because God has revealed how he is to be worshipped.
It's not so much following the Goddess as doing what she wants so she doesn't drop a kangaroo on me.
>>66198662
By multiple prophets multiple times, all with a different message.
Provides a set of beliefs about a worldview and the nature of the universe; a way of ethical living; a sense of identity and community; as well as a source of wisdom through scripture
>>66198556
>And the followers didn't stand up to the leaders.
they did though, and it just led to more war
>>66197660
Because they're weak and the world is scary. It provides an explanation for everything and a framework of behaviour.
>>66197660
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA6aIhHzXkw
>>66199154
>Provides a set of beliefs about a worldview
This is done privately anyway. Even when people start with a religion they often branch out because their interpretations differ.
>the nature of the universe
This can be explained through science or personal interpretation.The also often are wrong in their explanations.
>a way of ethical living
This can be achieved through secular law and once again, personal interpretation. Ethics are a personal belief to everyone.
>a sense of identity and community
High schools can provide this better than religion.
> as well as a source of wisdom through scripture
Perhaps some, but a lots of scripture is silly shit too. Emissions of donkeys, god sending bears to maul kids for making fun of a bald man, daughters having sex with their father to make a new tribe, etc.
>>66199384
>projecting
>>66199154
>a set of beliefs about a worldview
a worldview is a set of beliefs you moron
>religitards, evry time
>>66199678
Just a fact. Religion is comforting and provides an explanation for everything (muh God did it).
>>66199748
And you know everything any religion ever says is false how?
>>66199895
Not the guy you are responding to, but you're putting words in his mouth. He didn't seem to say that everything religion ever says is wrong, but they have been proven wrong multiple times.
The world being flat, geocentrism, evolution, etc. Science provides a lot of answers for the formation and state of our universe.
Of course there are many thing science cannot yet explain, but it is ignorant for any man or set of beliefs to claim to have all the answers for all the questions.
>>66200182
It is ignorant to completely dismiss them as well. Especially ad-hoc (before looking at each and every claim)
Your scientistic views are ipso facto (because of the above) a dogmatic worldview
>>66197660
Your picture, by the way, emphasizes self-importance and is Marxist propaganda.
"Everything was disparaged--the
nation, because it was held to be an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had to listen to that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation of' the working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the proletariat; RELIGION, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they did not drag in the mud. " - Adolf Hitler, Meinkampf.
Marxist Shill.
>Why don't we trust individuals to form their own morals, their own religion?
Because the likeness, cognition and empathy of society has always been the progenitor of morals, always; that's National Socialist 101
>>66200394
It isn't ignorant to dismiss something that provides no evidence and demands to be believed. We live in a dark world. Science is a candle, only lighting a small area, not lighting it perfectly, but revealing things we couldn't see before. Science is a man in the dark with a map shouting that the map will lead us out, just trust him.
>>66199481
I'm like halfway through this and have no idea the point you are trying to make by posting this. He has so far not validated why religion is needed in the world.
>Why don't we trust individuals to form their own morals, their own religion?
I honestly believe the majority of people are too shitty of human beings morally etc.
It's a lot better when the majority of these shitty humans are confined by atleast some religious morality.
>>66199679
... okay
>>66197660
>atheist statist thinking he is enlighted
>>66200414
>take an inspirational poem
>accuse me of being a Marxist shill for believing in myself.
>go on some stupid fucking rant
The purpose is to honor yourself, it doesn't say to also forsake others.
>Because the likeness, cognition and empathy of society has always been the progenitor of morals, always; that's National Socialist 101
But this happens without religion, so why do we need religion?
>>66197987
And tell me, my retarded friend, what is common law based off of? If you need help, you can find it very easily on the wikipedia page
>>66200795
But as explained - you don't need religion to form morals. And we have laws for those without them anyway, so why do we need religion?
>>66200835
I'm not even an atheist.
>>66197660
>God does not require a religion.
True but muslims win if christianity dies out hence I am christian this is war annon Deus vult!
>>66198556
I'm not seeing how you want to trust people to form their own morality that you saId in the OP, but then are implying a very relativistic view of morality. IF there isn't a God or unifying force behind a common morality, why should I not be allowed to break any laws that I deem to be against my morals, if the law is based on morality (which is mentioned and implied throughout your OP and following posts)?
>>66200583
It provides evidence. It just provides no scientific evidence and to presume truth can exclusively be gauged scienfically is absurd and self-refuting
>>66200914
Thanks for starting off your post with an insult, it really shows me the kind of person you are.
>what is common law based off of?
More than likely religion according to the wikipedia page, because we all know how accurate that website it. Even if it is religion - it has served its purpose. We have common law - that would likely be all it has provided as a net positive. Religion still is always up to personal interpretation or you have to accept a whole mess of silly beliefs to go along with said morals. Say you agree with the morality of the bible - hope you don't like shellfish or mixing fabrics since they are sins. Don't agree with that which is blatantly written in the same book - your interpretation (or you just love shrimp so much you would risk it as a sin).
Though I do not believe religion is the sole provider of morals through human history - there is the survival of the tribe. Even look at chimps, why do they not all kill each other or steal from each other? Why would they do anything that would harm their social order?
>>66201096
No, it doesn't. There isn't a single shred of evidence that any miracle or supernatural event has ever happened, period. You look into it, over and over again, and every time there is nothing. That is religion; all talk, zero substance. If you really believe that truth being gauged scientifically is so absurd and self-refuting, why don't you explain how you came to that conclusion?
>>66197660
>Seriously, why does anyone follow a religion?
The basis of the scientific method is Jesuit Theology m8. The search for the "Laws of Nature" employed by God as mentioned in Genesis.
Gee I wonder why anyone would want to examine the world around them, have any fears about death, or be interested in the Universe as a near-eternal entity?
>>66201096
Not to mention fundamentally dogmatic
>>66201084
>why should I not be allowed to break any laws that I deem to be against my morals, if the law is based on morality (which is mentioned and implied throughout your OP and following posts)?
For one, there are legal consequences. Secondly, they harm society as a whole. We do not murder because if you kill the one blacksmith in the tribe you will be without a blacksmith. It's pretty basic in my opinion.
>>66199515
Yeah, I agree. Most of the things can be done personally.
But I would say that Religion provides an extra source to help inform and form one's understanding of the world around them. The problem with religion is that people might think you can accept it all or none of it, and there is no in between do you know what i mean
Truth is truth and doesn't belong to any particular category of "religion" or whatever group you belong to. I guess that by seeking religion you might find some parts of truth in it that may help you along your journey
I am spiritual but not very religious. I think each one of our beliefs/ways of thinking are just as unique as our personalities - dividing them into groups doesn't really accurately represent anything. Same with politics, and everything else
>>66199384
>framework of behaviour
I would say a framework for obedience and compliance under feudalism for the Abrahamics versions 1 trough 3. Under Christianity an abstract God and most coveted position - Pope of Rome whatever, the Lord emperors, Dukes, Counts, Vassals and then a base of plebs.
Under eastern philosophies it's more like, if you are born into a shitty social class, you worship a Buddha or whatever and don't give a shit.
This has all evolved into major and minor factions all over the world fighting or kissing ass with each other based on how much they have in common.
Overall, I guess about half of the 7 billion apes, or more, subscribe seriously to the game and are players, the rest are spectators shaking their heads in dismay at what it has all wrought.
It all depends on what happened to you as a child, before the age of 10 or so, then you are set in your ways for life. Why the priest class obsesses over children. Sad.
>>66201290
>Gee I wonder why anyone would want to examine the world around them, have any fears about death, or be interested in the Universe as a near-eternal entity?
Yeah, not to mentions the all religions have a different message, and people often vehemently defend the one their family was born into. That totally forgives the church from the inquisition and child molestation.
>>66201258
I said "[...] exclusively scientific is absurd and self-refuting"
I did that through pure reason (through a formal/ purely mathematical non-obervational inference)
Google: "verificationalism" and "self-refutating"
>>66201381
>I am spiritual but not very religious. I think each one of our beliefs/ways of thinking are just as unique as our personalities - dividing them into groups doesn't really accurately represent anything. Same with politics, and everything else
I could not agree more. A little bit can and should be taken from each religion, but solely following one is just silly to me. They should be treated as history - to be learned from and not repeated.
>>66201615
*self-refuting
>>66200847
>The purpose is to honor yourself
Ok bub; I'll give you that one.
>But this happens without religion, so why do we need religion?
Why do we need a family? Why do we need a nation, or a state, or communities?
People who are likeminded or who share likeness, coming together in congregation has ALWAYS been a good thing, always.
>>66197660
Because it's true
/thread
>>66197660
the only religion we need is humanity
>>66201615
I'm not really sure I even understand what you're trying to prove to me. Should I abandon verifiable reproducible knowledge for vague faith in nothing because you scrambled meaningless philosophical garbage together that somehow "refutes" the observable world?
>>66197660
Weak people need easy answers and a sense of belonging or they go insane.
>>66201690
>ALWAYS been a good thing, always
So the inquisition? You sure you're ready to defend such a massive blanket statement.
>>66202191
>redditors in charge on understanding the inquisition
>>66197660
Why anything at all anon?
Why even bother?
>>66201936
I'm not trying to prove it to you. It has been conclusively proven self-refuting to believe in the exclusive, I repeat, exclusive ability for science to arrive at truth
Exclusive/ by itself
We all have vague faiths one way or another. They're called axioms
It's either that, an infinite regression or Pyrrhonic skepticism
>>66202475
Oh, I misunderstood. We actually agree, then. I guess I'd be a Pyrrhonic skeptic.
>>66197660
Aman cannot make his own purpose no more than a dog can.
>>66202744
Best kind of skepticism imho
Eastern philosophy inspired
>>66198028
> Man is a violent animal
> People wonder about why Christ had to sacrificed
Accept the sacrifice of the Son or you will be placing your own sons on the battefield of land, ideology and honor e.t.c.
>>66202903
I just finished reading an account of the Gautama Buddha's life, actually. Pretty interesting stuff, I think I'm going to spend some time reading into eastern philosophy in general. Also, thanks for being patient with me in our discussion.
>>66202191
Inquisition is an assumed "religious" event; but it's not; we have leaders, and we have religion. Nothing Jesus said could lead one to war, NOTHING. It'd be different than, if, for example, Muslims believed in a pedophile who married a 6 year old, who was a warmongerer, beheaded people, etc.
Leaders and society took the assumed value of their religion as a commodity for political gain. The first Crusades was actually a defensive war against the Muslims who were killing people and preventing pilgrims from entering Israel; thus, they shouted "Crusade" which meant "Crucify", NOT out of revenge on the Jews, but as retaliation against the Muslims who were slaughtering the Christians.
>>6620316
No problem mate. Cheers for listening
Have a good one
>>66202820
>Religion is a way of thinking and it has a significant impact on the general population
>If we rid ourselves of religion, then by that very nature propagated above, it would significantly impact the general population
Why does anyone like this fucking hack? Why is he a celebrity? Anything he says I've heard from the common man.
>>66199895
I don't. I also can't disprove the claim that there is a dragon orbiting some distant planet in some distant galaxy right now. That doesn't mean it's true.
>>66203251
This is known and obvious. There is no doubt the atrocities attributed to the religious are the fault of selfish men in high positions. But they did these things in the name of religion, which the run counter. Obviously Jesus would approve of no deaths by the hand of another man, but the followers of the religions did nothing to stop these atrocities. If they were true believers in Christian pacifism they would have put an end to it and rebelled. But they didn't because religion is a tool for control.
>>66203264
Y-you too.
>>66203515
>Religion is a tool for control
I don't want to say you sound like a Marxist, but you do.. So um.. Yea....
I don't see it as an issue with religion though. When someone offends the honor of an individual, we get mad, and we go to their defense. When someone attacked the king, we stood loyal, and retaliated. Religion is a unifying factor in our society, and when someone offends it, it hurts to have our honor broken that much. For them, they had no choice but to retaliate. In their case, though, heathenism was seen as dishonoring the church, and they did it for that reason. You can say "Well See, they did it because of religion", but I think it was because people back then were just unintelligent. I come from a very honorable place; people used to fight, and even having a certain last name made you subject to hatred; this went away when technology got better and were able to communicate better; we got intelligent, and we learned, and communicated, and rather than offending those who dishonor us, we take a more intelligent approach. Religion in the future, if it survives, will be extremely peaceful for society, because SOCIETY will be peaceful. Religion is a unifying factor. And in the future, it gives us something.
