Why we have to follow religion

Well...I guess you will have to relay on your mind in any circumstance...still I advise you Spinoza...or do you really believe that the lamb and the lion will graze together in Heaven´s fields ?

Why are so many of the allegedly philosophical questions posed by people who cannot write coherently in English?

...A statistical consequence of the very concept of network...urbanism in opposition to a parochial self enclosed existence, with all the expected "good" and "bad" attached to it...

Yet another incoherent example of the babble which passes for philosophy here. I don't insist that people write in English--only that if they do, they do so coherently. That leaves out the author of this thread . . . and you.

Thank you for your idea and correction

As I said this is not a matter of you insisting, rather is a statistical problem well out of your control...but not surprisingly you are the one who seams to lack the ability to comprehend what is what...your arrogant childish outburst is yet just another way to release the usual frustration you so eloquently display around the place...you are not worth the answer either...although I am necessarily aware you will never comprehend why.

Who is we ?

Your concept of "self" cannot function without your concept of "god". Fortunately, that constraint does not apply to many of us on this forum.

No, you didn't say that, you're just babbling more nonsense, as always. There is nothing arrogant about demanding that those who write in English do so coherently. In fact, it is arrogance typical of the confused maundering you do here to suggest that anyone be obliged to play some game of attempting to figure out what a member means, if they could write coherently in English.

You waste a lot of time on someone you allege not to be worth an answer. Far from being frustrated, pompous jackasses like you provide me endless entertainment.

Quite the opposite...it is precisely because your concept of "self" can function that your concept of "God" can consequently emerge...

...demand all you want...file a complain...the river will keep flowing exactly as it must...unfortunately you seam ultimately unable to distinguish between the desirable and the possible, no wonder your mood suffers...oh, and if my presence can at least have the merit of entertaining you, the better, then perhaps not all is lost...(how you perceive me is none of my business...enjoy it !)

Wish you a pleasant day Set !

Sorry, you need to explain that one. Concepts like "self" exist by virtue of their relationship with other concepts. My statement implies that the stability of "self" for believers involves the stability of a "God" concept.

The word you wanted was seem, not seam. No, i expressed neither a desire, nor speculated on possibilities. I just pointed out how idiotic it is to expect to have a conversation in English with someone who is not coherent in English. It was your decision to jump into this to attempt to pick a fight.

Once again, i am amused by how much effort you expend on someone you have already stated is not worthy of an answer.

...again you imply two things which you will never be certain of, that it took effort, and that I gave you an answer at all...
(Thank you for the "seem" instead of "seam"...that, in time and with patience, will be helpful)

...but that, has an infinite chain right there, you see...the stability of concepts like self, God, and such like, they all depend not only on the Social in which they emerge but also on the observer ontological status at a given time in a given context...

I didn't say you "gave me an answer," i simply pointed out that you had responded after having said that it wasn't worth the effort to respond to me. I don't imply that it took an effort, i assert that it took an effort. That you wish to lie about that has nothing to do with me.

You crack me up Bubba.

Fair...I honestly admit that you are far from being the mindless nonsense that you sometimes seem to be...You are worth an answer even if to disagree now and then...sometimes I just feel like you should be more tolerant...nevertheless you are OK once one can get past the first impression.
(I´ll bet that was a surprise to you)

Candor is not much of a surprise, even from the likes of you. Compare the appearance of that candor, however, to both you arrogant assertion that i would be incapable of understanding if you had "given me the answer" and your further assertion that i was being arrogant. Additionally, your remark implied that you had wisdom to impart, although, alas, i would be incapable of understanding it. Now there's arrogance for you.

I looked into this thread thinking that the author might offer an ontological argument. Instead i found incoherence. When i commented to that effect, you jumped in to pick a fight. I'm not at all convinced that it is worth any effort to arrive at an understanding with you.

Whut?

Anyway, to the OP... As you can see, any response will depend on who you ask. So here comes mine: No, you do not have to follow a religion. Unless you're religious. And even then . . . not really.

You clearly have a problem with middle ground...agreement with me would n´t be any fun at all, besides its irrelevant, honestly hope you stick with your "role"...you are certainly entitle to your own judgements...be well !