Religion: not necessary?

Totally agree, but I think that the problem (so far, at least) is that irreligious people are somehow looked at as immoral. I know it's not the case all over the globe, but for the most part, people who have no believes are Satan's representation.
Religion has been around for as long as people have been around, and it will not be so easy to live without it just like that. It is still needed, but losing popularity, so I wouldn't be surprised if there will come a day where it will totally disappear, making room for social rules and the likes.

I think that religions are helpful to some people - I mean, a lot of people - because they provide certain guidelines (be respectful inside a church or temple), rituals (like going to Church on Sunday, praying at a certain time), and kind of govern our way to live, depending on which religion it is (like not eating meat), etc. Those things make you feel a sense of belonging (e.g. look, I am a Christian) and help assuage the loneliness of some people.

I think being open minded would be to accept and respect other people's religions.

The "bad" thing is when religions become too restrictive and start to claim that they are the only true religion in the world, thus defeating (or self-defeating) the purpose and reason of its being - going against the teachings of the religion founders.

I like to refer to myself as a traditional christian. I do not think I have to be a part of a church or youth group to be one. I believe that Christ died for me, and I have to recognize this and humble myself. I try not to call it my religion, and I try my hardest to keep an open mind.

I do respect other's religions, but that does not mean that I will not spread the word of Christ. I think when you try to force it on others, or turn around and tell them that they are condemned to hell, noone will ever listen to you. I think that when I sit down and really ask what someone believes and what they think, they open up more. It's really too bad that a lot of Christians are snobby. That's when Christianity gets a bad rap.

Good point plaxdan, that was worded perfectly. Just a few random thoughts because there's too much I'd say on the topic if I didn't stop myself.


Take person A who was born and raised in a standard Christian family, absorbed all the corresponding ideals and beliefs, and was then professing those to others. Then change history. What happens if A had been put up for adoption at birth and was adopted by a family of a different religion and/or culture (let's say a Jewish family). Ok, now that person will grow up absorbing those principles etc, but all of a sudden they are now condemned basically in Christian eyes. When you think about it from this "adoption" argument, you can see how relative religion can be.


Although I'm obviously not a religious person, I always tell people that religion is a good thing, and that the world would be a completely different place without it. When I say good I'm referring to the morals placed onto a person of a given religion (you can't deny this is equivalent to the term behavior control). Basically all morals can be summed up into two categories (same as society laws): to keep people from getting hurt and to promote fairness. It's fairly easy to reason that hurt is a bad thing, and through some more steps of logic it can be shown that hurting each other is bad, and it has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs. If the societies of the world could understand this, institute ideals of compassion from the lowest of ages (which obviously they all try to do), we wouldn't need the moral aspect of religion, as Community referred to:




My belief is that if you were to pick the most important aspect of living (not life, as that would obviously be air, water, and food), it would have to be love. This is highly related to the previous statements. As people we need to be able to have compassion for each other. It's a fundamental human need to be accepted. It deals with the idea that "I matter." If a person can't find reason in their life, then it seem become meaningless and lead to depression and worse. That's where compassion and love come in. But you can start to see how this line of logic can be derived without any reference to religion or gods (I'm trying to keep this short). The great thing about Christianity is that Jesus is constantly loving you. It doesn't matter how down you are, or that you might not have anyone else to love you in life, Jesus will always be there as that companion - enough to keep anyone going, a sense of security.

That's what I see as Christianity's big appeal, and that's why I believe it's spreading so fast. If you look at all the people in underdeveloped countries, on average there's a lower quality of life (don't ask me how that is measured - separate talk). But when you take a character like Jesus - unending Hope, Love - and insert it into that society, you see large conversion rates. I know the Christians recognize this too. Google "christian conversion tsunami region" and you see the kind of conflict that has arisen with faith-based missionaries entering the region. I admit to not having more evidence than word-of-mouth for the conversion rates. I wish I had some respectable figures to show.


So accepting religion's existence is all fine-and-dandy until people start getting hurt. That's where I start to wonder if it's good for humanity. In general no one gets hurt going to church, expressing their views, and trying to spread their message to others. Then I look at the Israel-Pakistan situation. It's an eye opener. These people are killing each other over their religious beliefs (and political/real estate reasons). But just think of this one thing: from a Christian stand-point none of them are going to heaven so it's doubly useless. Anyway, that's more of a make-you-think statement than trying to get into a political argument.

I agree 100% that we must respect each other's beliefs. The key to living together on Earth is not discriminating over nationality, culture, religion, gender, color, etc. We must respect each other's ideas, other's ways of living without judging. Fundamental reason why? For the most part, none of us were able to choose those qualities! You'll notice in all this ranting and raving I have not said anything bad about any religion (besides worrying about its usefulness when people start getting hurt), nor have I assumed that anyone of them is wrong, because a person can't prove these things. Regardless of whether these religions are true or not, I'm trying to point out real consequences of their existence.

Did I say I was going to keep that short? ....oops, sorry. Peace.

Plaxdan: unnecessary to you. Religion is unnecessary to you, but that doesn't mean it is unnecessary to everyone. The question really isn't whether or not a person can be moral or ethical without being religious. Of course they can (despite what religious extremists say--but then, what ideology does not have loud-mouthed extremists). Humans are social creatures who need to be part of accepting, ideologically compatible groups. Organized religion is the main societal institution that fulfills that need. It's irrelevant that our religious/spiritual identities are largely determined by the family and/or society in which we are born. If I were raised to be a devout Muslim and nothing occurred in my life to modify that identity, then it would be necessary to me to participate in religious institutions that nurtured that identity and provided a social group with religious identities similar to my own. The alternative is social isolation.

There has been negative division in the human species since long before organized religion, and even if organized religion was removed utterly from the equation, there would still be negative division based on ethnicity, nationalism, social inequality, ideology and scores of other things.

So the question isn't why don't open minded people see that organized religion is unnecessary, but rather, why don't open minded people see that organized religion is necessary for some.

I believe there has to be tradition of a sort; the archetypal myths be paid homage to. But if there is to be a religion, it must be one in tune with science, ready to change with each new discovery. I don't care who believes or disbelieves the notion of gods. That's personal, a conviction one is born with or without. We each are born with a propensity to good and evil. We know instinctively to tread a middle path, except when something happens, like illness, chemical imbalance of the brain, insanity, etc. I don't know that there is true need of churches for most, but some of us need to congregate. Perhaps they could become sort of universities or something. With bingo and barbecues.

I agree that the necessity of a religion is dependent on the person. Sometimes it's just what a person needs to keep them going. It's ironic maybe, that I often wish I had been born with religion... Sometimes I feel I would somehow be happier, and less stressed out. But who knows...

True. For obvious reasons we model ourselves after our parent(s). Their influence over each of us is invaluable. They give unto us a great number of the morals we use day to day and their decisions shape our own. Obviously we all one day will have developed our own viewpoints etc. but our past and thus our present is shaped by those initial values they knowingly and unknowningly delivered unto us...hey that sounded biblical.

I don't believe belief or disbelief is a matter of choice. I think a person cannot change their true disposition. Madelyn O'Hare's son, for instance, was brainwashed in her beliefs, but is today very religious.

edgarblythe- I don't know much about O'Hare, except that she was a militant atheist. I find it interesting though, that you characterize the teaching of her beliefs to her child as "brainwashing". By implication, are you saying that the religious who teach their children the beliefs of their faith are brainwashing THEM?

Also, it seems to me that it is a quite common phenomenon for many children to rebel against their parents' teaching, by taking the opposite stand from their parents, be it political, religious and/or social issues.

And then there are those of us who think for ourselves, and make our own life decisions.

As a parent I'm curious about this myself. I figure I should teach my child to study all the theories and think for herself and develop her own conclusions, but right now she's only 2 and a half. Soon she's going to want unambigious answers to big questions. Others are going to be much more forceful pushing their beliefs on her (especially if they view her as a soul that needs saving) Any thoughts?

Eorl- At the age of 2, I don't think that your daughter is going to suprise you with any of the "big" questions, for some time yet.

I think that as a parent you need to model by behavior. It is important that you inculcate the postitive values for your child through example.................honesty, integrity, kindness.

As far as the "big" questions go, IMO, you need to show her that over the world, many people have varying ideas about those questions. Ask her what she thinks. Show her that you value her opinion. Reinforce her for thinking for herself. Give her the opportunity to express her views freely.

Explain that different people have differing concepts about the way that the world works, life and death, and that each person needs to be comfortable in the way that they view the world.

As these things come up, you need to discuss these questions in an appropriate manner. Be open and honest, but keep your talks relevent to her age and level of development.

If there are people (possibly relatives?) who have strong ideas with which you disagree, explain to your daughter that the loudest and most strident person is not necessarily the one who has the correct answer. Let her understand that Aunt Bessie may mean well, but she is merely giving HER opinion.

I remember that when I was a child, my parents bought me a kid's book that explained the various religions, in very simple terms. I haven't been to the kid's section of the bookstore lately, but I will bet that you could find plenty of material that you could use in your talks with your daughter.

Thanks Phoenix, I agree with you completely (as usual it seems) but some might argue that demonstrating the diversity of world opinion would be the best way of making her an atheist. (It was certainly one of the ways I came to see the world that way). "Aunt Bessie" may think that my daughter is going to be happier and better adjusted if she has a strong mainstream faith that has a clear and obvious moral structure. (I'm playing devils (Gods?) advocate to myself here)

Eorl- As her parent, you hold the trump card. It is up to you to point your child in the direction that you deem appropriate. The fact that you are encouraging free thought in your child, is an advantage many children don't have. Your daughter will have the opportunity to make her own decisions, based on lots of information. IMO, that is far preferable to a child being taught only one body of thought.

IMO, bottom line, is that teaching kindness, decency, and respect for the decisions of one's own mind, is far more growth producing and self actualizing than being drilled in a tenet of a particular faith.

Does it really matter what Aunt Bessie thinks? Or Cousin Louie, or your neighbor down the block?

LOL Phoenix, I think you have nailed the nature of my problem perfectly since "Aunt Bessie" holds the same trump card I do !! But I still think you are right and I should "hold my course" in this matter. (Prediction: interesting times ahead at MY house)

(Preists tried to tell us it would never work, but that was 17 years ago, so go figure!) LOL

I infered nothing about Christians as a whole. I spoke of one individual as an example of brainwashing failing to have a lifelong hold on a person. It was meant to illustrate my contention that one believes or not by natural predisposition. There are some Christians who brainwash and there are some who probably do not. I have seen examples of both in my personal life.

I'm a member of JSA, a debate club here at my high school. I'm agnostic, myself, and when we went to Philadelphia for a debate conference I had to go to the one titled 'Does Atheism Promote Immorality?' It degenerated into a huge argument about the strict meaning of the word 'Immorality,' and what morals were. People felt that morals were actually specific to religions, and that only religious people could have them.

That's the problem, really - that people feel that if you're not a Christian, you worship the devil, eat babies, and so on. Once people realize that this is not the case, and that it is not only possible but probable that people who have shed religion will be upstanding, contributing citizens who don't eat babies at all, religion's place in society will vanish.

I'd also like to point out that, although there has been many lives ended in the name of God, I don't think there have been many ended in the name of atheism.