quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

if religion is a need it means ONE, people find it essential or important AND TWO they require it in their lives

How does this differ from your saying, "they are religious because religion offers them a way of understanding their experiences." Are you not saying that they find it essential/important and because of that they have it in their lives.

Just as in my previous post, where I pointed out your idiosyncratic use of the words "ordinary" and "amazing," you seem here to be using the word "need" in a rather idiosyncratic fashion too, as if unaware of its connotations.

Needs are driven. The driver may be biological (we need air to breathe), or the driver may be circumstantial (as when we need a doctor), or the driver may be psychological (as you imply when you speak of someone who needs religion). But in all cases, the need is driving. The individual is in the back seat. So when you talk about people needing religion, you are depersonalizing them; putting them in the position of being merely an object, driven by their need.

But I am saying that is not always the case, and probably less often than some might think. People grow up. They choose to live a religious life, or they choose not to, and I am arguing the difference between choice and need.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Maybe English is not your first language....

That must be it.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

need: necessary... necessary... requisite... necessity... necessary

necessary: essential, indispensible, requiste

No options. No choice.

Gotta have it.

Get it?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

5) Why should anyone care about what I do or don't believe, or anyone else for that matter, it is a personal thing, I dont push my religion on anyone, I dont expect anyone pushing theirs or lack of on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

But I am saying that is not always the case, and probably seldom the case. People grow up. They choose to live a religious life, or they choose not to, and I am arguing there is a difference between choice and need.

K.

[/font][/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I have been following this topic with interest, and there are a few points I would like to make.

1) Nobody "needs" religion, morality and ethics are pretty much determined by society, everybody pretty much knows what is good and what is not good.

2) The problem is that for those of us who do believe in a supreme being, being told we are stupid, crazy, and other descriptors is not the way to convince us we are wrong.

In point of fact, no body has any proof of god or the lack of a god.

3) The idea that religion will become unacceptable is insane in my opinion, but even if it does, it will not disappear, it will go underground.

4) Arresting people of faith because of their faith and religious beliefs has already been done, Soviet Union, China, Korea and other countries have done it.

5) Why should anyone care about what I do or don't believe, or anyone else for that matter, it is a personal thing, I dont push my religion on anyone, I dont expect anyone pushing theirs or lack of on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Okay. A serious reply.

While actions that stem from racism are largely unacceptable, racism itself isn't/shouldn't be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Okay. A serious reply.

People follow religions for a myriad of reasons and while there are some that have been "brain washed" into cults, the vast majority are people that were taught certain things when they were young and have continued those practices well into their adulthood because they see the reason in what they were taught.

Their reason. Their experience/evidence/whatever has shown them that a higher power of some kind does exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

We've had threads before about how people "need" religion. I am one of those people who believes that a certain percentage of people (pick a number) will always need religion. And therefore, regardless of whether I, personally, need it in my life to be a good person, regardless of whether I feel religion causes harm in the world in other ways, religion is always going to be with us. The best we can do is to try and have a dialogue about how to minimize the ill effects on society as a whole (the imposition of religious rules on the secular, wars waged in the name of religion, etc.) But even then, in my experience in life, most of the truly religious are not really interested in playing well with others, because they believe they are the only ones with the right answer. That type of entitlement doesn't lend itself to cooperative society building. In other words, we are due for more of the same…... I wish I could be less pessimistic, but I see no evidence pointing the other direction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Yes. I suspect that you are correct and that there will always be those who need religion, and that many of the religiously minded citizens of our various countries will always put their religious beliefs ahead of their social obligations.

I don't share your pessimism however. In most Western countries, the trend has been that more highly educated the general populace is, the less religiously inclined it is. Ireland is a good example of this trend. (The US appears to be somewhat of an exception to this trend). So, as time goes by the ability of the religious to impose their beliefs on the rest of us is diminished. These attempts will never disappear totally - indeed there are areas of social policy where religions contribute positively and their contribution should therefore be welcomed. But on the whole, I don't see any reason to suppose that this trend will be stopped or reversed.

In line with this trend, it may be that increasingly religious belief and observance will be seen more as part of the personal private sphere rather than the public social sphere. So I doubt that religion will ever become totally unacceptable as per the OP. But I do see it as becoming less and less relevant and influential as time goes by.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

The problem with religion is not the principles. The problem is that the generations who followed Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed have turned a few simple ideas and philosophies into enormous monoliths with infallibility as part of the core belief system. The discrimination against gays, transgenders, and even the "wrong" skin color that is rife within the various religion sects comes from the distorted idea that worshiping a particular godhead somehow makes the individual superior to someone who worships a different godhead. Short and to the point, it's "my god is better than your god so I have the right to kill you." I would love to see the absurdity of religion abandoned in favor or a more rational outlook, but I don't think the human race will last long enough to become that enlightened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Hi Tweak,

Fucktoy and you both seem to believe that some people "need" religion and some people don't. But not everyone is religious because they "need" religion. They are religious because religion offers them a way of understanding their experiences.

Science can tell us whether or not our beliefs about physical reality are consonant with its laws. But there are things that science can't explain, experiences for which it can offer no accounting, some of which it even denies are possible.

Your own OOBEs, for example. Science will tell you they are hallucinations, just the brain playing tricks on you, and that you can't really be actually out of your body. Do you only believe they are real because you "need" to believe in them?

In my opinion, all of the problems caused by religion stem from dogmatic and literalistic belief in some book, not in a universal divine reality in which or in whom we are all united. And frankly, I question the validity of even calling the former religion.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
"Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"
'No, religion is ruining the world, you need to stop!'

I used to think like this.

Then I slowly realized it was just an opinionated man with a narrow focus complaining about opinionated people with a narrow focus.

The world got rosier the day I finally figured that out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Okay. A serious reply.

While actions that stem from racism are largely unacceptable, racism itself isn't/shouldn't be.

I'm speaking of the thought process; the root of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
If everyone operated this way society would be much better off. Unfortunately, today, some religious people do not operate with your live and let live attitude. Although we are supposed to live in a society with separation of religion from the state, many people feel that their religious beliefs can, in fact, be imposed on others by using narrow religious beliefs to dictate the boundaries of law. I really wish more people thought like you, especially when it comes to creating laws for the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
1) Nobody "needs" religion, morality and ethics are pretty much determined by society, everybody pretty much knows what is good and what is not good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I don't think it will be some mainstream religions views on homosexuals that will be their possible eventual demise. I believe there is just as much discrimination among atheists against gays as there is among the religious.

And this is a good example of the problem with wishful thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/whats-connection-between-religion-and.html
Unsurprisingly, religious people were more likely to be homophobic - in fact, religion was one of the strongest predictors of attitudes to homosexuals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yup, you are right. Some of the charities like to spread the word that Jesus loves everyone while helping out with food, clothing and shelter. They like to show others how they have been moved to reach out and help those less fortunate and they do so by going out and helping others. So what is the problem with that? Does it somehow taint the food or make the roof over their head less reliable? When you start a group to go out and replace these evil ones I will say you have room to talk. But until then what is your solution, let them starve? And while I am sure there are some who do it to get tax breaks, I doubt that it the reason most do it. And I am almost positive that the people receiving the aid are not sitting around bitching because the people who fed them might get a tax break, they are just happy they have food.

Most donations (80+%) to religious organizations get spent on maintaining the organization itself (personnel, building expenses, debt maintenance, etc.) Only a small percentage of it goes to actual charity. What do you think keeps all of those churches/mosques/temples etc. in working condition? Who pays for all the staff? Once you eliminate those expenses there isn't that much that goes to actual charity. For example:

https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20

Those are churches and yes their first priority would be keeping the church going, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

If one wants to donate to actual charities that help actual people without religious strings attached, there are many charities that can be recommended where less than 5% of their budget is spent on administrative costs. For example:


http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=113#.Ux35sFxcZRx

That is a great link, but the first charity mentioned http://www.midwestfoodbank.org/home is a faith based charity so I am not sure what your point was.

If you want your charitable dollars to go farther in terms of helping actual people one is much better off donating somewhere other than your local religious institution. This is an absolute fact.

A fact based on the link you provided above? Because according to it number one on the top ten is faith based. and that is an absolute fact

And anyone who thinks religious charities do not have strings attached when they operate in places like India or Africa are absolutely wrong about that.

Everyone can do what they want with their money, but absolutely do not preach to us about how giving to your local church/mosque/temple is actually helping so many people when only about 5-20 cents on the dollar is even remotely associated with true charity. If you want to support your local church/mosque/temple go ahead. Just don't claim how charitable and socially conscientious one is when most of the money is going to support the actual church/mosque/temple.

There are definitely better ways to spend one's charitable dollars if one actually is interested in having those dollars reach actual people in need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Here is the DEFINITION OF NECESSARY:

nec·es·sary adjective \ˈne-sə-ˌser-ē\ : so important that you must do it or have it

This implies that you can determine IF IT IS IMPORTANT OR NOT.

Well no, it doesn't imply that. It means what it says.

The extent to which a connotation of compulsion attaches to the word "need" varies with context. If you need a new car, not so much. But in saying that people "need" religion, the context is psychological and the implication attaches that they are driven into religion by their insecurities and fears. So you can thump your dictionary and claim whatever you like, but when you find that it gets a bad reaction remember I told you so.

K.