Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Completely disagree. And I have given considerable thought to "Why do we need religion today?" One of the biggest reasons we need religion is that it tells us what is morally right and wrong. There are many everyday situations you land in when you are faced with a dilemma of what is right and what is wrong. In many cases, both your options will be perfectly legal. However, one option would be morally wrong and the other right. This is where religion plays its role. Besides, belief in an Almighty who will guide you to better times gives hope to the hopeless. And that is what helps sustain their lives. Do not attribute some of the evils of today just to religion. If we did not have religion, we would probably have even more evils than what we do now. Except for giving a sense of hope (except, it is unproven), religion offers nothing inherently on its own. Morality is not a factor of religion- there are many atheist people who will consider most scenarios of morality (right/wrong) similar to theist peoples. You don't have to believe in a God to consider raping, pillaging, murdering etc. to be wrong. Religion was relevant at some other time in human history, its losing its significance currently to contribute to social upliftment. There are many human practices that were necessary at one point and is not necessary now- such as slavery. Religion in an organized and codified sense, is similar.
Precambrian Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Completely disagree. And I have given considerable thought to "Why do we need religion today?" One of the biggest reasons we need religion is that it tells us what is morally right and wrong. There are many everyday situations you land in when you are faced with a dilemma of what is right and what is wrong. In many cases, both your options will be perfectly legal. However, one option would be morally wrong and the other right. This is where religion plays its role. Besides, belief in an Almighty who will guide you to better times gives hope to the hopeless. And that is what helps sustain their lives. Do not attribute some of the evils of today just to religion. If we did not have religion, we would probably have even more evils than what we do now. Completely agree. But for religion, the whole world would've descended into anarchy and jungle raaj. It has given rise to civilizations, city states, where people otherwise warring each other for everything, and seeing a rival in anyone, started to cooperate and believe in unique values. It brought unity in people, organized them. Like anything influential in the history of the world, it is not without flaws. But that doesn't mean religion is bad. Calling religion is bad because it has led to fundamentalism, terrorism, etc is like blaming science because it gave rise to guns, nuclear weapons, atomic bombs etc.
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I don't see how religion has given rise to civilization, i think its the other way round- mankind invented religion to keep a certain cohesiveness due to the question of religion doctrinated authority. Religion was relevant in pre-democratic world because fundamental purpose of religion was to vest power in the administration. Now, it doesn't serve that purpose. Science and religion are not comparable- religion is a paradigm, science is a process. Its comparing apples and oranges. Religion is similar to capitalism, communism, etc- systems of beleif that has to do with social dynamics rather than an empirical process that has to do with material understanding of the phenomenal universe.
moniker Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 That is an logical fallacy. For one, you cannot consider disbelief of something to be the same as belief in something. "I deny its existence till its proven to exist" is not a fully functional viewpoint either but it is not the same assumptive behavior as choosing to believe something exists without any proof of it. The reason for atheism being > theism from an existential viewpoint, is simple: One can say with empiric existentialism, " I choose not to consider anything that which i cannot truly perceive empirically, beyond my senses, because it does not change the determinism of my action". That is not, technically speaking, denial of existence of God or a higher paradigm. It is stating that I choose not to believe in any evidence ever presented of existence of any higher existence/paradigm, i.e., i am not convinced that your God, is the real thing. You cannot challenge this with logic because the reality is, there is no such thing as a perfect anything and you cannot prove the existence of a perfect being without proving that any one given thing you can think of is perfect in the first place. This subset of atheism is called agnosticism. To put it simply, it is refusing to care for that which is beyond our control or understanding and believe other people who say they know the real deal without presenting any undeniable evidence of this 'Godly correctness'. The bold part doesn't really substantiate your claim that atheism scores over theism from an existential viewpoint, it is more about agnosticism as you've mentioned in the latter part of your post. Believing in the existence of a deity is subjective, so is rejecting the possibility of existence of the deity. Pragmatic agnosticism is the most objective viewpoint. That's poles apart from strong atheism.
Tiger80 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Religion was relevant at some other time in human history, its losing its significance currently to contribute to social upliftment. There are many human practices that were necessary at one point and is not necessary now- such as slavery. Religion in an organized and codified sense, is similar. Soviet and China , both violently tried to kill religion, result religion bounced back .So argument religion is losing significance is not true
gattaca Posted March 30, 2015 Author Posted March 30, 2015 OK, so the OP mentions that according to state law here May I ask when the film was set? If it was the 80s or earlier I can believe this, but this certainly isnt the case today. You see ever since our independence in 1949 and well prior to this the Catholic Church had a huge hold on Irish law,society and culture. Throughout our history all schools were Catholic funded as the British government never really cared to set any up, hell in some poor place places the church was the only thing that would feed or take care of them. Unsurprisingly Irish society was very religious and conservative as a result, and not in a good way e.g various paediphile priests were knowingly moved arounf the country so they could continue destroying lives all the while the higher ups in the church did zilch. Such was the power they had the police often ignored their crimes. Law was also affected e.g. until the 80s you couldnt even divorce or buy condoms without a subscription here. It sounds like something you'd read about Saudi but thats how we were until 3-4 decades ago, we really have progressed a long way since then and the church thankfully is a dying influence here and has no power over state affairs. The case you mention, family law here certainly favours the female over the male in regards to custody of kids, but sadly this is the case in nearly all western countries as in most cases the mother is left to care for the baby and the father is nowhere to be seen. Its not right and will change but its a slow process, as in cases where you can argue the father is better, there are also cases where the mother is the best option. Things should be looked at independently and hopefully will be in the near future You also mentioned the Savita case, where the woman died after being refused an abortion. The stance on abortion is one of the last remnants of our dark days of the church's power and a referendum will be held in a couple years to solve it once and for all. According to our current law, a woman can only have an abortion under certain cases so abortion on demand isnt available legally. Rest assured there was widespread outrage/embarrassment over the Savita case and that poor womans death wont be in vain. The abortion stance really is our biggest shame and the government at the moment is a cowardly farce of a government and wont hold a ref on it as an election is due soon enough and they dont want to rock the boat too much among the older more conservative voters who may still subscribe to old views, but trust me, in 5 years time this wont be an issue. Thanks for the detail response. yes this movie is based on real event in 1953. This helps to understand some history of Ireland. Thankfully they made changes to some of the laws and need to change to a few as well.
gattaca Posted March 30, 2015 Author Posted March 30, 2015 Soviet and China ' date=' both violently tried to kill religion, result religion bounced back .So argument religion is losing significance is not true[/quote'] When you say bounced. We need to know how many people got to churches or monasteries. If it is small percentage that's hardly a bounce back and also what I read in news is china allow these churches to run underground but not openly. So they haven't tried to control the religion growth completely.
gattaca Posted March 30, 2015 Author Posted March 30, 2015 Completely disagree. And I have given considerable thought to "Why do we need religion today?" One of the biggest reasons we need religion is that it tells us what is morally right and wrong. There are many everyday situations you land in when you are faced with a dilemma of what is right and what is wrong. In many cases, both your options will be perfectly legal. However, one option would be morally wrong and the other right. This is where religion plays its role. Besides, belief in an Almighty who will guide you to better times gives hope to the hopeless. And that is what helps sustain their lives. Do not attribute some of the evils of today just to religion. If we did not have religion, we would probably have even more evils than what we do now. Can you elaborate on this ? I can raise my kid to be an atheist and still let him know what is good and bad. Regarding the hopeless you will think of god when you feel he put in that place first and assume if you pray he will help you out more like saying god is testing you. But if you believe their is no one who put you in that situation but because of some unfortunate events or mistakes of your own. You can work your way to get out of the situation.
kruiser Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 The factors why people practice religion today: 1. Escapism - some one to lay blame to if things are not what you want them to be. "may be this was God's will". 2. Hope - I am in such a bad situation, maybe God will help me with a miracle/ winning a lottery/ creating circumstances favorable to me. 3. Social Structure - provides an avenue to meet with people that have similar dilemmas as you. temples/ churches/ mosques and religious celebrations bring people together. This is a big need "to be accepted" that is fulfilled by religion. 4. Fear - combination of above. Persecution by society, my parents did it so i should too, what if Gods get angry with me. Is it needed - not in the sense of providing salvation, but yes in terms of maintaining a societal fabric.
Tiger80 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 When you say bounced. We need to know how many people got to churches or monasteries. If it is small percentage that's hardly a bounce back and also what I read in news is china allow these churches to run underground but not openly. So they haven't tried to control the religion growth completely. Study: Rising Religious Tide in China Overwhelms Atheist Doctrine One of the last great efforts at state-sponsored atheism is a failure. And not just any kind of failure. China has enforced its anti-religion policy through decades of repression, coercion and persecution, but the lack of success is spectacular, according to a major new study. No more than 15 percent of adults in the world's most populous country are "real atheists." 85 percent of the Chinese either hold some religious beliefs or practice some kind of religion, according to the Chinese Spiritual Life Survey. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/study-rising-religious-ti_b_811665.html?ir=India
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Soviet and China ' date=' both violently tried to kill religion, result religion bounced back .So argument religion is losing significance is not true[/quote'] Argument for religion losing significance IS true- the west is rapidly becoming irreligious and this is actually the first time in history that religion is on its way out from the society where military AND economic power resides. That had never happened before since religion was always a factor behind power and economics. History proves a very simple fact: You name a major religion/beleif system and it follows the pattern- any- Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism: these religions did well when the society of its followers were doing well militarily and financially (even in Judaism, their 'golden period' is that 900-800 bc king solomon/king david period- the only time Israel ever had a king who wasn't a vassal of someone else) and started to fade when the societies it was followed in got weaker and poorer. This is because of a simple reason: religion/philosophy provided the basis of sanctioned autocratic power in the world. Every single autocrat derived legitimacy from their religion to be an autocrat. And organized religion has always failed to be of significance to democracies- over time religion weakens in democracies because power is derived from popularity instead of principles dictated to by religion. It is important to discern between organized religions, such as Islam, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Christianity & Judaism versus the unorganized religions like Hinduism,Jainism, Buddhism, ancient pre-Christian European pantheons. The difference boils don to the fact that organized religion polices a code of conduct through a clergy structure, the unorganized ones do not. Without the code of conduct enforcement, the unorganized religions are basically a religion of very different individual beliefs, pretty much coinciding at what the roles of various Gods or universe etc are and attending festivals on the same day.
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 The bold part doesn't really substantiate your claim that atheism scores over theism from an existential viewpoint, it is more about agnosticism as you've mentioned in the latter part of your post. Correct. The existential practicality of atheism and agnosticism are so minor that i tend to classify agnostic as a subset of atheists for practical purposes. Believing in the existence of a deity is subjective, so is rejecting the possibility of existence of the deity. Pragmatic agnosticism is the most objective viewpoint. That's poles apart from strong atheism. Yes, it is. But in how it relates to the implications of agnosticism and atheism in practice, the difference is hard to discern. It also simplify the conversation because theists overwhelmingly tend to think agnosts = atheists.
vvvslaxman Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I wonder if you guys follow the Purvi patel case.. She is convicted. May face upto 20 to 70 years for a miscarriage. http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-13/indiana-jury-says-purvi-patel-should-go-prison-what-she-says-was-miscarriage Stupid Indiana law.. Religious and Racist f***tards.
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 bhai, plenty of autocrats tried to do away with one organized religions- some succeeded (Arabs in Persia), many didn't but they replaced one religion with another. Autocrats need an regulated religion or philosophy to derive power from. Otherwise, everyday someone would show up with a sword and say 'challenge' and try to fight you to be king. Its democracies where organized belief systems tend to go out of the window: this organized & regulated belief system is no longer the basis to deriving power, so it has less influence in dispensing power- i.e., laws! In virtually all democracies, over time, religious attendance declines.
Donal Cozzie Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I can tell you with certainty that religion here and in the west in general is on the way out, a large amount of people who are religious these days are desi or African immigrants, amongst locals its dying out. Since the 1980's I'd say attendance has fallen in half, can only see that trend continuing. I'm technically Catholic but I'd lean more towards agnosticism if I'm honest. In the middle-east religion will remain as Islam is waaaayyyyyyy more restrictive than any other religion, so for that reason I cant see religions hold elsewhere waning
Recommended Posts