Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 27, 2024, 3:55 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
#1
Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
Religion, as we mostly agree, is a man-made concoction. It is often founded partially on history, and mostly on fabrication. The likelihood of this explanation being the most accurate is backed up by observing a rumor being spread; starts as fact, changes a little bit from each person telling it until it's a story about a different person, a different situation, and a different outcome so that it's no longer recognizable. Happens all the time, and time is a multiplying force in it, too; the longer it goes on, the more warped it gets.

What once were parables became accepted as fact by many and became truth even though it was neither truth nor fact, but it's largely assumed that because, hey, the more people think it's true, the more it's accepted as it. History, after all, is written by the victors and ergo history is filled with liars. The further back into it we go, the more of a lie it is likely to become. We have independent sources nowadays and archeological evidence for what we accept as fact but we still have to accept that sometimes even what was recorded may not entirely be true, which is why I always discard the argument for the supposed authenticity of the bible and the quran and the talmud, especially when there's far more of a void in regards to the supposed events than there are statements supporting authenticity, which is always a red flag. Removing the supernatural miracles that defy the possibility of reality and the utter lack of recent evidence, when taken into context the stories involving these texts become more and more ludicrous and difficult to take seriously. The quran, for example, was written from, supposedly, 3,000,000 different sources and one guy took all 3,000,000 accounts and narrowed them down to 1,500 or so and then further down to like 1,000. On his own. Funneling 3,000,000 accounts through a single guy and yet virtually none of these accounts can actually be found anywhere else other than the claims made by the believers of the book these supposed accounts went into? And what gave this one guy the authority to, a century after the fact, parse and piece it all together, exactly? If these were all claims, and he was having to go on context, how did he really know what did and did not contradict? If nothing else, I suppose it justifies why the quran keeps shifting its tones and stories and commands so much, but that isn't a justification you really want because then it just throws more fuel onto the fiery debate of authenticity.

The bible isn't much better, having been cobbled together 300 years after the fact by a bunch of people who never experienced anything and basically picked-and-chose what they liked and didn't like and canonized/discarded stuff at their whim.

So I get to the meat of what I'm getting at here with this; this points to people taking the stories and rumors and cobbling them together for the sake of creating something to use as a means of control. Religion, if you are not aware [I know you all are] is a powerful tool of both unification and division along lines that the people cobbling the rumors and stories together desire; unify these people that you like, and alienate these other people you are bigoted against, and rally your unified forces against them to crush the opposition and your bigot-hated enemy. Nevermind the reason for the bigotry; it's not important, it simply exists, we are all too aware of that.

So, religion has always been a force of unification. This used to be a "good" thing, though how good you can really consider it is really up for debate. Nations of today and the invisible divisions we throw up amongst ourselves were created largely by something as silly as stories and rumors which became so permanent that they eventually created these dividing lines. You see, rulers of the old days were not very strong; there is a reason the whole "divine right" thing became so popular; because it was the cheapest and easiest way for men with no real grip on their reign otherwise to actually HAVE a grip on their reign. It wasn't foolproof, of course, but if the mob believed you were appointed by beings far more powerful and terrible than they could imagine, wielding powers the equivalent of modern nuclear weaponry, then they weren't going to be quite so vocal and hasty to demand you get the hell off the throne when you continually took a massive dump on them all day every day; you weren't just bitching at your pharaoh or king or dynasty or emperor, you were bitching at a man who had a being with his finger perpetually hovering over the Big Red Button.

Unification always comes in one of two ways; through ideas, or through force. Force is the easier method of unifying people, and ironically, it's the weakest. It takes the most simple-minded of ideas, it requires only that you have your minions kill your enemy's minions, and you generally don't have to do anything beyond having a bigger army than someone else other than claim that it's your right by the gods/god to keep your own guys in check. Ideas, however, were harder, took longer, had a far less chance of success, albeit with a higher payoff...not to mention the invincibility of an idea if enough people believe in it. You can destroy a nation but if it was founded on an idea, a principle, then nevermind the invisible borders; the spirit of that nation and its people still live on. Take as such the Greeks and Romans with their ideas of republic and democracy...novel concepts in their time, now the backbone of the modern developed and developing world, even though the nations that built it are, in their original images, long gone.

Religion was simply used to unify. To scare the poor and pitiful into submission. It's still used to this day to do just that but it's no longer a necessary force of any kind. Lots of Christians in the US are well-known for saying that the US is a Christian nation and that all of its problems can be blamed on supposed moral backsliding caused by a "lack of faith" but when you really look at all the problems, lack of faith isn't the cause, it's the cure, and the actual cause is, in fact, those of higher faith becoming more rabid in their desire to FORCE [key word] their ideas onto everyone else in some weird desire to homogenize everyone to be just like them. They are an example of the worst aspect of humanity; the resistance to change and progress in the name of being content and comfortable. Everyone wants it easy. Difficult ideas and difficult tasks take work; almost nobody wants to work. They don't want the idea. They want to apply force; crush the difficult task down and make it simple and easy so you don't have to think about it.

In this day and age of instantaneous communication of ideas and thoughts, this is an outdated concept, and unfortunately human nature doesn't like that... But still, we can fight against our own nature, we do it all the time, quite often for the better. I say almost nobody wants to work; but notice the few who do are always the ones who are more intelligent, who do more than those who just want to make everything boring and simple and basic.

This is why religion is no longer necessary. If, indeed, it even ever really was to begin with. We no longer need a unifying force based on scare tactics and force. We can use, and are using, a unifying force based on ideas. Ironically the homogenization that comes with it is a good one, as opposed to the homogenization that comes from religion and force. The homogenization from trade of thoughts and ideas breeds cooperation, discourages bias and bigotry and prejudice, and brings humanity closer to understanding that no matter who you are, who you prefer to have sex with, or what gender you are/want to be, you are still a human, and that we can improve our own lives by improving the lives of others based on this crucial and obvious fact. Whereas the homogenization brought on by religion and force BREEDS bias and bigotry and prejudice, and tears humanity asunder by forcing the notion on people that if you have a different skin tone or stature, have sex with someone you're not supposed to or you are a certain gender/want to be a certain gender that you're less than human, bringing on destruction and holding back both the individual and the collective of humanity in so doing.

And that is why, in this day and age, where WE do actually have such immense power as we once feared mythical creatures for having, religion is not only no longer necessary...it needs to go away, because it is a relic of a time where force was an acceptable means of unification. Now is the time of ideas, flowing faster and further than ever before in human history...and religion, and those who desire to rule through the weakest means, need to step aside, and fade into the night, never to be seen again.
Reply
#2
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
Religion will exist for as long as it meets at least one human need. That some kind of religious belief remains ubiquitous in most countries suggest religion remains relevant for the majority of human beings.

It is interesting to observe that religion declines in direct proportion to affluence,education and the democratic process .IE freedom of religion and conscience.


I have not yet seen any convincing evidence that religion is redundant or indeed that the world would be noticeably better off without religion.
Reply
#3
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
(August 16, 2012 at 11:16 pm)padraic Wrote: Religion will exist for as long as it meets at least one human need. That some kind of religious belief remains ubiquitous in most countries suggest religion remains relevant for the majority of human beings.

It is interesting to observe that religion declines in direct proportion to affluence,education and the democratic process .IE freedom of religion and conscience.


I have not yet seen any convincing evidence that religion is redundant or indeed that the world would be noticeably better off without religion.

I have. The weaker religion has gotten, the better things have gotten for the average individual. Look at medieval Europe for evidence of that. Heck, ya just stated that. Now if you refer instead to spirituality, which is a personal thing, as opposed to religion as an organized belief system, then yeah, that'll probably never go away.
Reply
#4
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Religion, as we mostly agree, is a man-made concoction...

(And women-made) But in any case, how did the first man (and woman) happen to stumble across religion?

(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...It is often founded partially on history, and mostly on fabrication. The likelihood of this explanation being the most accurate is backed up by observing a rumor being spread; starts as fact, changes a little bit from each person telling it until it's a story about a different person, a different situation, and a different outcome so that it's no longer recognizable. Happens all the time, and time is a multiplying force in it, too; the longer it goes on, the more warped it gets...

Why wouldn’t natural selection eliminate such an extravagant drain on human resources?

(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...What once were parables became accepted as fact by many and became truth even though it was neither truth nor fact, but it's largely assumed that because, hey, the more people think it's true, the more it's accepted as it.

Not a fan of the oral tradition I see. What would you favor as a replacement? Wikipedia? Mr Assange's unsourced, anonymously reported hearsay?


(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ... History, after all, is written by the victors and ergo history is filled with liars.

Hmmm. Thats a great big slap in the face to historians. There are entire university faculties doing what you describe. One wonders what victorious New Atheism might tell lies about if ever some day they eventually rule the world. And what do we then make of the so-called Higher Criticism/Historical Method?
You know Bart Ehrman is a historian right?


(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ... We have independent sources nowadays and archeological evidence for what we accept as fact but we still have to accept that sometimes even what was recorded may not entirely be true, which is why I always discard the argument for the supposed authenticity of the bible and the quran and the talmud, especially when there's far more of a void in regards to the supposed events than there are statements supporting authenticity, which is always a red flag.

Something needs to be done about modern archaeologists who dig up stuff which corroborates bible history. (Solomon, Caiaphas, Shishak, the lost city of Petra.)



(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ... Removing the supernatural miracles that defy the possibility of reality and the utter lack of recent evidence...

I disagree. I say miracles happen every day.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/life-g...racle.html


(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ... The bible isn't much better, having been cobbled together 300 years after the fact by a bunch of people who never experienced anything and basically picked-and-chose what they liked and didn't like and canonized/discarded stuff at their whim.

Almost a million words. "cobbled" together over 1000 years. By 40 known writers.
Oh yeah, and it just so happens to be the most widely read and published book in human history.
Tale of Two Cities - 150 million.
The bible - over 6 billion!

(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ... So, religion has always been a force of unification....

Yes and atheism is either a religion or it isnt.
If not, then you are effectively arguing for DISUNITY...the opposite of unity, cooperation, harmony, teamwork, family, etc, etc.


(August 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ... Unification always comes in one of two ways; through ideas, or through force. Force is the easier method of unifying people, and ironically, it's the weakest....

I completely agree.

And so does that exemplar of fail, Tomas de Torquemada. (if he could talk he would agree with Mr Grayling)

I mean, how good can an idea really be if it has to be forced on people.

And conversely, how truly great and worthwhile must an idea be if people are willing to die for it.

Now, where were we? Theism?/Atheism?/Theism?/Atheism?

Thinking"
Reply
#5
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
Religion was never more necessary than a contagious disease. It is now less prevalent not because its never existent necessity ever had room for reduction, but because access to good mental hygiene has improved.
Reply
#6
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
That's a lot of words to say "people were really stupid back and gullible then and are a little less so, now" CoH.
Reply
#7
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
Heh, Lion, ya took me a bit too literally on the point about history and who it is written by. Context, good sir. Lemme address your counterpoints in the number they were brought up:

1: Name me a single major worldwide religion, as in sizable enough to affect political matters, where a woman can attain the highest rank available to a man. Catholicism, islam, protestant christianity, judaism, buddhism, shintoism, hinduism...hmm...nope, none of those have any gender-equality going for their hierarchies...quite the opposite, in fact...

2: Well we can naturally select to get rid of them. I naturally selected to do so myself. Naturally, the selection has actually done a fantastic job of becoming far more curious about the world surrounding me.

3: Oral tradition has its place. In a time where instantaneous communication was not possible. It now is. I prefer the internet; if you sift through the shit, you actually will find quite a lot of information. You just gotta, you know...sift through the shit.

4: Context is important here, actually. "History is written by the victors" refers to the victorious of wars and uses of force, not an in-general statement about historians. Quite often, in situations where wars were waged and the defeated were completely removed, we only hear of the glories and good of the victor...and not much in the ways of detraction. The further back you go the more prominent this becomes, though we still see it sometimes today in modern history...especially with the way the news corporations operate nowadays.

5: Like I said, the bible and its precursors/descendants are based in some part on history. Yet they haven't found other, more crucial things that would more directly corroborate the different reports... Like...whatever happened to the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrha? Or the burial cave of Moses on Mt. Sinai? There's many others, but those two pop into my head pretty quickly. Lots of time and effort spent searching and yet, nothing... I'm not saying they won't be found because I don't know that for a fact but I'm also not going to be surprised if in a hundred years they're still looking with nothing to show for it, is all...

6: Key word: Supernatural. And strictly speaking, miracles are considered supernatural. Childbirth...I wouldn't call it a miracle but I WOULD call it an extraordinary wonder. Yes, extraordinary; if you go by ordinary meaning the average of a chance and then consider all the variables involved with the development and birth of a fetus...it is actually quite extraordinary.

7: Tale of Two Cities: Little over 150 years. Bible: A little over 2,000 years, plus the bible kind of had the advantage of being one of the first books to ever be mass-printed. Kind of an unfair advantage, that.

8: It isn't. And I would never argue for atheism ever being a unifying factor. I'd argue for a lot of other things being a unifying factor, however...like active pursuit of the betterment of all humans regardless of nationality, color, gender, or anything else regarding the circumstance of their birth.

9: If you must apply force to spread your idea, then your idea is weak. You can apply force to try to expedite its spread if you truly are so impatient but that only corrupts the idea, taints it, makes it synonymous with brutality and therefore with weakness, and destroys what good it could have done if it had been adopted at the steady rate of progression that an idea will inevitably bring. But if people are willing to die for an idea in the face of having force threatened upon them, then it's even more profound. Nothing is absolute, of course. Gray areas abound. For example, I would die to preserve the idea of liberty and equality in humanity...but I would not die trying to force liberty and equality on others. That's the important thing to remember; you must let the idea spread through connection and adoption. If the others wish for liberty and equality after hearing and experiencing it themselves, then they will fight and die for it because then it is their idea and force is being threatened upon them for it. But remember...this only pertains to ideas that elevate all to equality. Ideas that harm or alienate others? Well, that is a form of force; doing something to someone else against their will.

...I don't understand the last part of what you are saying, though... XD

(August 17, 2012 at 2:42 am)Minimalist Wrote: That's a lot of words to say "people were really stupid back and gullible then and are a little less so, now" CoH.

That's why my name is "Creed of Heresy," implying some long-winded set of ideas and details, and you are named "Minimalist," implying cutting through the bullshit and saying it quick and simple. Big Grin

Sometimes, though, you need to spell it out. I like spelling it out, especially when I have fuck all else to do.

(August 17, 2012 at 2:17 am)Chuck Wrote: Religion was never more necessary than a contagious disease. It is now less prevalent not because its never existent necessity ever had room for reduction, but because access to good mental hygiene has improved.

...Yeah, pretty much, actually. I say it was "necessary" not in the sense that there was no other option, but rather in the sense that in the days of information being largely relegated only to tribes, clans, or a few cities and therefore not in very high circulation at all, it was a handy tool that was required by the otherwise completely weak-willed rulers that were a dime a dozen back then. We sure have them today, too, of course, but back then, even more so. It was necessary for them; they couldn't really rule otherwise most of the time. But necessary for humanity? Not by a far cry...and we know this now...hence it is no longer necessary.
Reply
#8
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
(August 17, 2012 at 1:55 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Not a fan of the oral tradition I see.

You must be fond of the oral tradition based on the fact that you chastised otherwise.

In light of this fact, I have but one question....

Do I get the proper handful of mane or must I settle for the two-fisted ear handles required to conduct the appropriate rhythm?
Reply
#9
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.



I disagree with the OP. The OP sounds like little more than back of the envelope conjecture and is likely of as much substance as the fables it's meant to criticize.

I don't feel like hauling out all the brain science and crap, so I'll just leave it at that. You need to spend more time studying what science has to say on the matter and less time making up just-so stories to comfort you in your prejudices.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
RE: Why religion was necessary; why it no longer is.
@ Lion. You asked how the first man/woman stumbled on religion

as man evolved from apes and became more intelligent, they began to worship the sun and moon, thinking they must rule all. Then when that wasn't working, an invisible God was introduced by man and so religion was born.
The bible is all a load of rubbish and filled with fairy stories. The Romans edited the scriptures and that is why there is nothing derogatory said about them
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Homosexuality no longer a sin Silver 155 24322 June 20, 2018 at 5:34 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Religion hurts homosexuality but homosexuality kills religion? RozKek 43 12321 March 30, 2016 at 2:46 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Terrorism has no religion but religion brings terrorism. Islam is NOT peaceful. bussta33 13 5552 January 16, 2016 at 8:25 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Religion's affect outside of religion Heat 67 21558 September 28, 2015 at 9:45 pm
Last Post: TheRocketSurgeon
  Was it necessary to create anything? ReptilianPeon 72 11763 April 6, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Last Post: dyresand
Rainbow Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion" CristW 288 59478 November 21, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Last Post: DramaQueen
  Prove the bible is unnecessary, atheist / Prove it is necessary, theists MusicLovingAtheist 18 5370 September 20, 2014 at 11:53 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Can anyone provide an argument for a necessary being? Rampant.A.I. 43 11424 April 25, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
Video Why Fighting Religion Is Necessary -video Gooders1002 2 1755 February 21, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Last Post: iameatingjam
  God is no longer a Myth Emporion 82 26484 May 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Last Post: Emporion



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)