Eliminating Religion?

[Marx]

You cannot eliminate religion wholly; there are individuals who need to believe there is something superior to look forward to, merely beyond the material world and towards the afterlife. There are aspects of religion that are negative, but demolishing it is an entirely different thing. Religion will always be a part of humanity, and the very notion of eliminating it altogether is impractical, religion is so concrete all over the world. It provides a “truth” which creates safety and specialty, for a person who can strive to ignore reality; it can be used merely as a crutch for some individuals. There are individuals who do not support religion entirely, but, on a perspective for a personal necessity that one needs religion in order to survive in this world. There are over 2000 deities that have been worshiped. Some individuals do not need to rely on faith, and do not need something all mighty and powerful for support, but some individuals do, and not everyone is the same, we are all diverse.

I'm not a religious person, I'm Agnostic. But I think if you're an Atheist, you should not try to remove religion wholly, maybe religious extremist. I personally think we do not need religion in our material world, but some people do need it, alas. Any comments? I know I'll probably get ripped on, but I'm open to hear your views.

[Minimalist]

Well....I think it would be a good thing to do away with the ignorance upon which religion thrives. It would mark a step in humanity's evolution into rational beings. Do that and religion will wither and die by itself.

However, I agree with your initial premise that there are and always will be people who simply need to think that there is an invisible sky-daddy watching over them.

That said....we should strive not to elect any of the dumb motherfuckers to office.

Greetings, BTW.

[Marx]

Well....I think it would be a good thing to do away with the ignorance upon which religion thrives. It would mark a step in humanity's evolution into rational beings. Do that and religion will wither and die by itself.

However, I agree with your initial premise that there are and always will be people who simply need to think that there is an invisible sky-daddy watching over them.

That said....we should strive not to elect any of the dumb motherfuckers to office.

Greetings, BTW.

I agree, but not everyone can think critically or rationally, unfortunately. So these people had to make a bible and scare the living shit of everyone to take a book so seriously, like honestly. But, it's good that there are individuals like you and I, that can fathom it. It's just that some people cannot, and it will be very hard to get rid of. However, I think on some aspects religion is fair. Such as for someone to believe when their loves ones will die, they are going to a place, and not just wither away into dust, it gives them a comfort. So why must Atheist bicker and try to push believers to the opposite? Maybe some faith believers want to believe their is a deity watching over them, religion seems to get people's head on straight, (simple-minded) sad I know.

[Minimalist]

it gives them a comfort.

Yeah - it probably does in roughly the same way that young kids are comforted by thinking that Santa is real. It doesn't do any real harm unless they take it to extremes.

So why must Atheist bicker and try to push believers to the opposite?

In all honesty? Because when the dumb fucks show up HERE spouting their bible bullshit I simply cannot resist. I do not hunt them down in their churches and try to dissuade them but if one wanders into my cross hairs on this board I AM going to pull the trigger.

[theVOID]

You cannot eliminate religion wholly; there are individuals who need to believe there is something superior to look forward to, merely beyond the material world and towards the afterlife.

People believe there is something more == People need to believe something more?

Complete non sequitur - The fact that people do believe something stupid is no reason to assume they couldn't get by without it. Anyone can deal with the fact that life is finite, they might not like the idea but they do not need to delude themselves to be able to function - You cannot possibly need something that does not exist.

There are aspects of religion that are negative, but demolishing it is an entirely different thing. Religion will always be a part of humanity, and the very notion of eliminating it altogether is impractical, religion is so concrete all over the world. It provides a “truth” which creates safety and specialty, for a person who can strive to ignore reality; it can be used merely as a crutch for some individuals.

People believe now =/= people will always believe.

How is the notion of eliminating religion impractical? To strive to remove delusion and self-deception from the human cognitive process is about as practical as you can get. The task is not a small one, but that's no reason why it can't be done or shouldn't be attempted.

How many people do you think will come to conclude that a god exists all by themselves in this day and age? Without the presence of deluded religious preachers it would almost never happen. Raise a child to use reason and evidence as their tools of investigation and the chances of them coming to plainly bullshit conclusions about reality will be diminished.

There are individuals who do not support religion entirely, but, on a perspective for a personal necessity that one needs religion in order to survive in this world.

Huh?

There are over 2000 deities that have been worshiped. Some individuals do not need to rely on faith, and do not need something all mighty and powerful for support, but some individuals do, and not everyone is the same, we are all diverse.

Nobody needs to rely on faith. Believing in things that do not exist is of no advantage to anyone, they might be fooled into misattributing their behaviour to a deity but their behaviour exists irrespective and is displayed by people with no such delusion. If such a massive portion of the worlds population can function without making idiotic assumptions then we all can - Our biochemistry is the same, so there is no excuse for self-deception to achieve the same ends.

I'm not a religious person, I'm Agnostic. But I think if you're an Atheist, you should not try to remove religion wholly, maybe religious extremist.

Do you currently believe a God exists? If not you are an Atheist.

Agnosticism refers only to your convictions, whether or not your position is "I reject the concept of god but do not know" or "god does not exist and I know it". In that respect I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Belief is binary, you either do or you do not - Agnosticism as you use it refers to a middle ground that simply does not and can not exist - You can't both believe and disbelief simultaneously nor can you do neither.

I personally think we do not need religion in our material world, but some people do need it, alas. Any comments? I know I'll probably get ripped on, but I'm open to hear your views.[/size][/font]

By 'we' you mean Atheists or Humans? Depending on what you mean you are either stating the obvious or contradicting yourself.

[Anomalocaris]

Elimination of religion means not just the marginalization of religion, but its complete and irreversible discrediting amongst all potentially cohesive groups. The primary obstacle to the itreversible discrediting of religion is the fact that someone will always benefit from keeping other people gullible and stupid through superstition, and gullible and stupid people are easy to form into cohesive groups.

While religion might be a sign of the failure of enlightenment to penetrate, perpetuating of religion could also easily be the work of those who are most ruthlessly enlightened about their own social, political and economic interests.

So no, I don't think human social dynamics favor the elimination of so proven a tool as religion.

[Marx]

You cannot eliminate religion wholly; there are individuals who need to believe there is something superior to look forward to, merely beyond the material world and towards the afterlife.

People believe there is something more == People need to believe something more?

Complete non sequitur - The fact that people do believe something stupid is no reason to assume they couldn't get by without it. Anyone can deal with the fact that life is finite, they might not like the idea but they do not need to delude themselves to be able to function - You cannot possibly need something that does not exist.

Then why do people need something that does not exist in order to function daily? Why do majority of prisoners or individuals that have experienced a disastrous state in their lives turn to religion? It's a positive and negative tool, religion is. It's a crutch for those who need something to hold on to, or their lives are basically going to be fucked up. Religion tends to ease that, even if religion extremism is nonsensical and not needed.

There are aspects of religion that are negative, but demolishing it is an entirely different thing. Religion will always be a part of humanity, and the very notion of eliminating it altogether is impractical, religion is so concrete all over the world. It provides a “truth” which creates safety and specialty, for a person who can strive to ignore reality; it can be used merely as a crutch for some individuals.

People believe now =/= people will always believe.

How is the notion of eliminating religion impractical? To strive to remove delusion and self-deception from the human cognitive process is about as practical as you can get. The task is not a small one, but that's no reason why it can't be done or shouldn't be attempted.

How many people do you think will come to conclude that a god exists all by themselves in this day and age? Without the presence of deluded religious preachers it would almost never happen. Raise a child to use reason and evidence as their tools of investigation and the chances of them coming to plainly bullshit conclusions about reality will be diminished.

Very true, we can try to tell the believers that this does not exist, but it'll take a long, long, time.

There are individuals who do not support religion entirely, but, on a perspective for a personal necessity that one needs religion in order to survive in this world.

Huh?

Sorry, I meant that individuals may not support religion itself but, people who do support religion may seem that it is a necessity, and needs religion to survive.

There are over 2000 deities that have been worshiped. Some individuals do not need to rely on faith, and do not need something all mighty and powerful for support, but some individuals do, and not everyone is the same, we are all diverse.

Nobody needs to rely on faith. Believing in things that do not exist is of no advantage to anyone, they might be fooled into misattributing their behaviour to a deity but their behaviour exists irrespective and is displayed by people with no such delusion. If such a massive portion of the worlds population can function without making idiotic assumptions then we all can - Our biochemistry is the same, so there is no excuse for self-deception to achieve the same ends.

I'm not a religious person, I'm Agnostic. But I think if you're an Atheist, you should not try to remove religion wholly, maybe religious extremist.

Do you currently believe a God exists? If not you are an Atheist.

Agnosticism refers only to your convictions, whether or not your position is "I reject the concept of god but do not know" or "god does not exist and I know it". In that respect I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Belief is binary, you either do or you do not - Agnosticism as you use it refers to a middle ground that simply does not and can not exist - You can't both believe and disbelief simultaneously nor can you do neither.

I'm skeptical on where we come from.

I personally think we do not need religion in our material world, but some people do need it, alas. Any comments? I know I'll probably get ripped on, but I'm open to hear your views.[/size][/font]

By 'we' you mean Atheists or Humans? Depending on what you mean you are either stating the obvious or contradicting yourself.

Humans in general, everyone.

[Kromoh]

I don't see anything religion provides that can't be found somewhere else - a psychologist, a work group, a charity group, sports, a job, art. Seriously, if you think humans need faith, they can find it rooting for baseball teams. If you think they need belonging, they can find it in work groups, fraternities, etc. If you think they need someone to talk to/rely on... well, there are like 6 billion other people on the world, huh? Plus you can always count on an imaginary friend.

If you're saying people need religion, then you might as well say people need corrupted leaders, political propaganda, intolerance.... you know what I mean.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't see anything religion provides that can't be found somewhere else - a psychologist, a work group, a charity group, sports, a job, art. Seriously, if you think humans need faith, they can find it rooting for baseball teams. If you think they need belonging, they can find it in work groups, fraternities, etc. If you think they need someone to talk to/rely on... well, there are like 6 billion other people on the world, huh? Plus you can always count on an imaginary friend.

If you're saying people need religion, then you might as well say people need corrupted leaders, political propaganda, intolerance.... you know what I mean.

One might make the analogous argument and say that there is nothing which crime provides that can't be found somewhere else. Sloganeered succinctly, crime does not really pay. But one immediately sees why the slogan must frequently be seen to be untrue from the perspective of the would be criminal. The reason is crime often affords a realistic chance of providing gratification to the perpetrator while shifting the cost either to someone else not benefitting and/or passing the cost down the line in such a way as to worsen the overall good. That is something which anything that actually better than crime can not, more or less by definition, match. So to the unscrupulous or the very confused, honest work is unimpressive, and crime definitely can pay.

The exact same reasoning applies to religion. There is something which religion can offer which rationalism, by definition, can not. That is the opportunity to enjoy both the emotional and material delights of satisfying or self-serving falsehoods while passing the cost of indulging in such delusions onto someone else, or kicking the cost down the line. So to the morally corrupt, or the very confused, intellectual rigor is unsatisfying, and religion definitely can pay, at the expense of someone else.

Every xtian attempt to hamper stem cell research is an act of theft from those who would have benefited from the research. Every xtian attempt to trumpets biblical cosmology over diligent scientific pursuit of knowledge is an act of theft from the collective power of humanity. But just as theft does often pay those who commit it, so too religion pays those who would spread ignorance to further it. Crime will never die because it pays, neither will religion for the same reason.

[Welsh cake]

You cannot eliminate religion wholly;

Who ever said we were trying to? I cannot speak for all atheists. However, the majority of atheists are not extremists who are plotting to physically dismantle religious establishments or seek to oppress theological movements and their followers in general. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god or gods. I personally regard religion broadly as fiction i.e. highly imaginative and lacking any kind of realism. Now one can be a non-believer and an anti-theist, as you indirectly implied, yet one can be an atheist and also be pro-democratic where they support people's rights and freedoms. As a law-abiding citizen, I back laws and statutory instruments that prevent censorship of an individual's or group's right to speak freely.

It's very important you recognise that atheism, anti-theism and pro-theism are not mutually exclusive.

Now, addressing this prospect of yours about "eliminating religion". You're being very vague. What do you mean exactly? I think you'll appreciate its not an objective entity in reality, it does not exist, its merely a system of mental concepts and constructs people can subscribe to, often without question or choice if they indoctrinated from childhood or peer pressure. You'll find time is more than capable of rendering any such movements and cults defunct, given enough of it. Mythologies such as Nordic, Greek and so on are essentially rendered 'obsolete' despite revival attempts by various organisations. Religions often incorporate or absorb each other and others such as Zoroastrianism are dying out from a lack of followers as we speak.

there are individuals who need to believe there is something superior to look forward to, merely beyond the material world and towards the afterlife.

Doesn't change the cold fact that when one's biologically dead all brain activity, conscious thought and self-awareness ceases to function, they're dead. If such immature people who can't handle the truth want to believe said rot, then its their privilege, they are entitled to think that, though I frown upon them advertising their beliefs of an afterlife. I discourage them seeking to have it taught in educational establishments where it doesn't belong, even more so when they actually threaten others for simply not believing their garbage with "eternal damnation".

Religion will always be a part of humanity

I don't claim to know if religion will always be a part of society or not in the near or unforeseeable future. You on the other hand are making a huge claim to knowledge by saying it is indefinite as long as we exist. Care to back up your claim?

It provides a “truth” which creates safety and specialty, for a person who can strive to ignore reality; it can be used merely as a crutch for some individuals.

Atheists are not trying to take away safety nets for hopelessly convinced people, however if the delusional party in question hopes to ignore the objective real-world around them, and the consequences of cause and effect, they are deliberately opening themselves and everyone else around them to every kind of abuse conceivable. Their subjective beliefs enforce their actions. They are still accountable regardless of whatever they may think is "objectively true". If they cannot function in a cooperative society like the rest of us they'll inevitably find themselves rejected by others own standards of approval or even removed from society altogether if acts of violence are sought in the name of that belief.

I'm not a religious person, I'm Agnostic. But I think if you're an Atheist...

So what are you exactly if you mind me asking? An agnostic theist?