How has religion hurt the individual and society as a whole

@giujohn,

When are the chariots of the gods coming back to get us? That's all I want to know, because dammit, I am packed and ready to go. Ready to go. You betcha.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Do you have your bus transfer? (no tokens will be accepted)

0 Replies

@giujohn,

I believe Religion is the result of people becoming frustrated with not being able to answer … WHY? This simple word is enough to drive even the sanest man crazy. We obsess about it.... Why do we breath? Why do we eat? why are we here? Try it even with the most intellectual human eventually they will get to a stage they cannot answer, I believe this is where the birth of religion began. People cannot answer past a certain point so they look to a higher power for the answer because it drives them mad.

0 Replies

What would you call human culture and knowledge that developed in lieu of religion? You may not like religion because you want some other morality or other way of framing/describing knowledge, ethics, etc.; but whatever alternative you would come up with would be just as much 'religion' as any existing religion. Even science becomes religion when it falls into the realm of widespread dogmas that people abuse for authoritarian power games instead of honoring as an active-critical process of knowledge-refinement.

Religion gets perverted because the human mind is capable of perverting anything. Religious philosophy actually recognizes this ubiquitous potential for deceit and addresses it. The Quran contains a lot on the evils of fake religion and fake believers, for example.

Any body of culture that had developed in the absence of what you mean by religion would have become perverted and abused to exploit people in the same ways religion has. It's not the fault of religion but of the people who abuse it.

You claim technologies would have been developed earlier in the absence of religion, but that also implies that the forces that thwart technological developments and other progress can only exercise power through the abuse of religion. That is not true. There are plenty of other avenues for exercising power against innovation to protect and secure established economic interests. Progress isn't stifled by religion but by anti-progressive interests that work through religion, among other avenues.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

I believe if it were not for religion we would have had the internet 500 years ago

Not so dissimilar to a religious belief, having no evidence for such belief - just supposition.

Quote:

We certainly would not have had as much strife and unecessary death.

Ditto.

Humanity has always found a way to engage in conflict. In the end, a percentage of every population just wants to control the rest of the population / other people. Only the reason & method they used has varied, with war being one of the more far reaching methods.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

I don't believe society can exist without religion. It is part of how humans evolved as social animals.

Religion is not the same as theism. Modern America is just as religious as ever.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't believe society can exist without religion. It is part of how humans evolved as social animals.

Religion is not the same as theism. Modern America is just as religious as ever.

Atheism is like the game where you have to talk about something without saying certain words related to it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Atheism is like the game where you have to talk about something without saying certain words related to it.

What the hell does that even mean?

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Atheism is like the game where you have to talk about something without saying certain words related to it.

What the hell does that even mean?

In other words, humans developed religious language to describe, explain, analyze, etc.

Atheism/materialism then comes along and insists that certain things should be left out of thought and language, such as God, spirits, spiritual states, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. etc. and that the Bible and other religious scripture should be regarded as anthropological artifact devoid of potential value/validity.

So for people who comply with atheist authority, they have to develop new languages to describe/explain/analyze things without using religious terms; e.g. modern/secular psychology, sociology, etc.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Oh.

Like leaving out the parts that are pure bullshit?

I think we already had the words to describe things without resorting to childrens fairy tales, and sadistic horror stories for assistance.

And funny thing, if new terms are needed, we have these brains that can think of them, and actually exercise our mental capacity, rather than wallowing in the swamp of stagnant thoughts.

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Oh.

Like leaving out the parts that are pure bullshit?

I think we already had the words to describe things without resorting to childrens fairy tales, and sadistic horror stories for assistance.

And funny thing, if new terms are needed, we have these brains that can think of them, and actually exercise our mental capacity, rather than wallowing in the swamp of stagnant thoughts.

It's easy to assume something is BS when you don't understand it.

1 Reply

The human mind evolved to.search for meaning. Religion isn't about gods.... it is about interpreting the world around us to find meaning.

Atheists do this the same as theists. Most human beings believe things without evidence that they never question. Whether we believe in one or more gods is irrelevant to our need to have beliefs to explain our place in the Universe.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

It's easy to assume something is BS when you don't understand it.

It sure is.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The human mind evolved to.search for meaning. Religion isn't about gods.... it is about interpreting the world around us to find meaning.

Atheists do this the same as theists. Most human beings believe things without evidence that they never question. Whether we believe in one or more gods is irrelevant to our need to have beliefs to explain our place in the Universe.

Yes, but resistance to understanding beliefs beyond the religion(s) we identify with as our own limits our access to wisdom that could benefit us.

This is true whether it is religious people refusing to give consideration to scientific information or scientific atheists dismissing all religion because they don't like the idea that natural cause and effect can be attributed to God or gods as their author(s).

Diversity and multiculturalism have gained such prominence in contemporary life, yet the will to exclude and hate has grown proportionally.

The reason for exclusion and hate most likely is that every insight brings with it a corresponding logic for constraining/controlling action in a way that is beneficial. E.g. if science shows us how too much sugar or caffeine or alcohol, etc. can harm us, then that brings with it a corresponding logic to stop or reduce use of those substances.

When people believe in certain religious ideas, science, etc. and then some other information is presented to them that would lead them into restrictions that they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with, there is a reflex to reject the new in favor of the old cultural understanding that didn't include the new restriction.

So basically the problem is that the will to unrestricted freedom (liberalism) impels people to avoid new cultural information and knowledge that would lead them to greater restriction in their choices.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The human mind evolved to.search for meaning.

It does, but why would evolution be responsible?
If there is none I mean.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The human mind evolved to.search for meaning.

It does, but why would evolution be responsible?
If there is none I mean.

Is it really necessary to start an evolution v creation debate as part of this thread?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I seriously overestimated you dude.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

I accept evolution as a scientific fact. I had no intention of starting a debate. You might notice I don't participate in this particular debate... it seems trivial to me.

I simply used the word "evolved" in the scientific sense. That is how I talk. You can ignore it or change it if you want.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I accept evolution as a scientific fact. I had no intention of starting a debate. You might notice I don't participate in this particular debate... it seems trivial to me.

I simply used the word "evolved" in the scientific sense. That is how I talk. You can ignore it or change it if you want.

I already knew that you weren't using the word, 'evolve,' to imply anything about evolution v creation.

My post was in reference to the one that used yours as a springboard.

0 Replies

How has religion hurt the individual and society as a whole

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know