Does the World Need Religion?

[Cephus]

Who cares?  You're confusing correlation with causation.  If atheism is not responsible for the atrocities, then the fact that they were atheists is irrelevant.  And you are simply wrong.  More atrocities are committed by the religious, simply because there are more religious people.  And of those things, a lot of them are caused by the religion, by the atrocity commiters own admission.

It doesn't make sense to me to say more atrocities are caused by the religious just because there are more religious people than atheists. Lots of religious people don't commit atrocities. I think the only way to compare is to tally the numbers of holy wars and that sort of thing against other atrocities like the ones I previously mentioned, but we've already established that we can't properly do that here, so unless someone else has already accurately done it, there's not a way to know.

You don't know how statistics work, do you?  If even 1%, for example, of each group commits atrocities, then theists commit much more than atheists do, simply because there are many, many more theists than atheists at the moment.  And again, I don't think you could come up with more than one or two atheists who claim to have committed their acts in the name of atheism, compared to tons of theists who will explain that God told them to murder, rape and abuse others, you just have no leg to stand on whatsoever.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times already, so pardon my repetition.

I'm just wondering your opinion. Does religion help keep people in line morally, and is it worthwhile in that way?

If the world were to lose its religions, would people become pessimistic or hedonistic? Would the result be anarchy?

PM 
Hello, Phoenix 31.  Would you say that it is more about people needing to think and feel a certain way that works for them and is meaningful for them rather than needing religion?  In other words, if people were to have a particular way of life/meaning-making (whether it be secular, non-secular, or whatever), one which helps them contribute to the world in a constructive and positive way, taken away from them, then would this cause those people to behave in a negative manner?

In addition, are people, who practice religion via peaceful and positive means, good/moral because of some objective component of religion or because these people are making religion meaningful in their own way?

[phoenix31]

I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times already, so pardon my repetition.

I'm just wondering your opinion. Does religion help keep people in line morally, and is it worthwhile in that way?

If the world were to lose its religions, would people become pessimistic or hedonistic? Would the result be anarchy?

PM 
Hello, Phoenix 31.  Would you say that it is more about people needing to think and feel a certain way that works for them and is meaningful for them rather than needing religion?  In other words, if people were to have a particular way of life/meaning-making (whether it be secular, non-secular, or whatever), one which helps them contribute to the world in a constructive and positive way, taken away from them, then would this cause those people to behave in a negative manner?

In addition, are people, who practice religion via peaceful and positive means, good/moral because of some objective component of religion or because these people are making religion meaningful in their own way?

Yeah I guess I would say people it's about needing to think and feel a certain way that is meaningful for them. I hadn't really thought about that outside of the terms of religion because to me, right now, morality doesn't make sense outside of religion. It's just my idea against your idea and whoever's strongest wins.

I don't know how to answer the second question.

[Cephus]

PM 
Hello, Phoenix 31.  Would you say that it is more about people needing to think and feel a certain way that works for them and is meaningful for them rather than needing religion?  In other words, if people were to have a particular way of life/meaning-making (whether it be secular, non-secular, or whatever), one which helps them contribute to the world in a constructive and positive way, taken away from them, then would this cause those people to behave in a negative manner?

In addition, are people, who practice religion via peaceful and positive means, good/moral because of some objective component of religion or because these people are making religion meaningful in their own way?

Yeah I guess I would say people it's about needing to think and feel a certain way that is meaningful for them. I hadn't really thought about that outside of the terms of religion because to me, right now, morality doesn't make sense outside of religion. It's just my idea against your idea and whoever's strongest wins.

I don't know how to answer the second question.

Morality only makes sense outside of religion because there is no demonstration that any religion is actually true.  It's just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims made without evidence whatsoever.

[phoenix31]

Yeah I guess I would say people it's about needing to think and feel a certain way that is meaningful for them. I hadn't really thought about that outside of the terms of religion because to me, right now, morality doesn't make sense outside of religion. It's just my idea against your idea and whoever's strongest wins.

I don't know how to answer the second question.

Morality only makes sense outside of religion because there is no demonstration that any religion is actually true.  It's just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims made without evidence whatsoever.

I guess I should have rephrased my initial question, do you think religion is a useful way to get people to behave in whatever way the people who perpetuate religion want them to behave, heh.

I guess religion in New Guinea somewhere would say killing your neighbor and eating him for dinner is moral so maybe my whole question in general was dumb.

I guess maybe I don't think the idea of morality makes sense inside or outside of religion.

[Lemonvariable72]

I've been thinking about this too. And I actually think yes. You see it seems like every time you remove religion, you get something else that people follow just as zealously. For example lately we have seen the rise of identity politics, social justice, and neopuritanism.

So what i think is that religion has neurological basis, or a expression of a underlying trait that not everybody has.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[Assimilate]

IMO, some people need a belief to hold on to, some of those people make it work in a good way, some not so good. I think if religion never existed we would have been fine, sooner or later you learn it's really not that hard not to be an asshole.

[Whateverist]

Hey, it's the variable Lemon72! Long time, no see. You may be right that there is a neurological tie-in for something like religious belief but I don't think it is irresistible or necessary. There just is a socket there that others things can fit into as well. I think the trick is to handle all such with "as-if", metaphorical gloves. Religious people would be better off to do the same. Keep the belief, by all means, but rather than profess undying devotion just frame everything with [it's as if ..] tags.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Yeah I guess I would say people it's about needing to think and feel a certain way that is meaningful for them. I hadn't really thought about that outside of the terms of religion because to me, right now, morality doesn't make sense outside of religion. It's just my idea against your idea and whoever's strongest wins.

Thank you for your response, phoenix31.  IMO, my second question was answered in your post:

It's just my idea against your idea and whoever's strongest wins.

If religion is ultimately a way of thinking and making sense of reality, then why would it be exempt from the "it's just my idea against your idea and whoever is strongest wins"?  This is what I was focusing on in my second question.  I appreciate and respect that religious morality can feel very real and objective to its practitioners, but does that mean that it is the only way for a moral system to make sense and be meaningful? What about people from the secular population, especially members from this website, who are peaceful, constructive, and passionate about their secular morals and the meaning and fulfillment that comes from them? Why would religious morality be any more objective or meaningful than secular morality or any other kind of morality?

Thank you for your time and attention.  Live long and prosper.

[Salty Science]

If you are soft or a child....... yeah you need religion so you can lie to yourself that you are going to heaven.